EAT The claimant had succeeded in his claim for race discrimination. The employer appealed, saying the tribunal had misunderstood its harassment procedure so as to be wrong in law. The claimant complained of a doicument recommending fer for a refernce to the Occupational health Department. The tribunal rejected the claim as to any factual discrimination but found against the employer in its procedures. The respondent had asked the authority to transfer the person about whom she had made the complaint, but this had not happened. The tribunal found that the respondent had not neen offered the protection of the harrassment procedure. The appellant said the tribunal had wrongly thought the procedure required the removal of the party alleged to have committed the harassment.
Held: The procedure was permissive only. Though the decision and reasons were not clear, it appeared that the tribunal had erred in the construction of the procedure. The decision was not demonstrably correct, and the case should be remitted.
His Honour Judge J Altman
EAT/0659/00
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Hammersmith and Fulham and Another v Ezeonyim EAT 2-Nov-1999
. .
Cited – Glasgow City Council v Zafar SCS 1997
The house considered the burden of proof in cases involving allegations of discrimination.
Held: Lord Morison ‘The requirement necessary to establish less favourable treatment which is laid down by section 1(1) of the Act of 1976 is not one of . .
Cited – Dobie v Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd CA 14-May-1984
The employee worked as a security officer for the appellant, which was in turn employed by the respondent to provide security for an airport controlled by the Merseyside City Council. The Council had the right of approval of any employee of the . .
Cited – Chapman and Another v Simon CA 1994
The Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider and rule upon other acts of racial discrimination not included in the complaints in the Originating Application.
Racial discrimination may be established as a matter of direct primary . .
Cited by:
See Also – Hammersmith and Fulham and Another v Ezeonyim EAT 2-Nov-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination
Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.171469