The claimant challenged dismissal of his claim of having suffered an unfair detriment having made a disclosure with regard to his employers. The employers had said that as a constable, his employment was outside the scope of the Act, and the decision of the Police disciplinary Board could not found his claim. Held: the paragraph … Continue reading Lake v British Transport Police: CA 5 May 2007
Practice and Procedure – Postponement or Stay – Transfer/Hearing Together An employment judge had erred in law in deciding that he lacked jurisdiction to determine a claim under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (the 2010 Act) arising between the claimant and the insurer of the insolvent first respondent. The employment tribunal was … Continue reading Watson v Hemingway Design Ltd and Others: EAT 16 Dec 2019
Victimisation Discrimination – Protected Disclosure – Interim Relief UNFAIR DISMISSAL The Claimant applied for interim relief pursuant to s.128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 following the termination of his contract allegedly because he had made protected disclosures. The Respondent contended that there was no entitlement to make such an application as the Claimant was … Continue reading Hancock v Ter-Berg and Another: EAT 25 Jul 2019
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL Contributory fault Polkey deduction Employee dismissed following disciplinary proceedings for: (1) misconduct towards other staff; (2) misconduct in attitude to directors; and (3) disclosure of information from staff payroll (3 instances). Employment Tribunal reject claims of wrongful and unfair dismissal but find dismissal ‘automatically unfair’ because one instance of disclosure was a … Continue reading Kaltz Ltd v Hamer: EAT 24 Feb 2012
EAT Redundancy : Suitable Alternative Employment – Did the Employment Tribunal err in law in concluding that the Appellant had unreasonably refused an offer of alternative employment for her own reasons, when it had correctly concluded that the offer was an offer of suitable employment which a reasonable employee could have accepted? Judges: Wilkie J … Continue reading Readman v Devon Primary Care Trust: EAT 1 Dec 2011
EAT Contract of Employment : Whether Established – SEX DISCRIMINATION – Jurisdiction – Unfair dismissal. Sponsorship of former mechanical engineering apprentice (Claimant) for university degree under a ‘University Sponsorship’ contract. Claimant withdrew from degree course and sponsor gave him the option of either resuming it or accepting an internship, both of which he declined. Sponsor … Continue reading GE Caledonian Ltd v McCandliss: EAT 22 Nov 2011
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALSEX DISCRIMINATION – ComparisonUnfair dismissal – misconduct. Claimant assaulted girlfriend (also RBS employee) in circumstances where he alleged he had been provoked by her having slapped him. Sex discrimination. Circumstances in which Employment Tribunal were held to have erred in requiring misconduct, for the purposes of s.98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, … Continue reading Royal Bank of Scotland v Donaghay: EAT 11 Nov 2011
The claimant had been an ordained minister in the church. She sought to claim unfair dismissal. The Conference replied that she was not an employee entitled to make such a claim. Held: The claimant was an employee. Judges: Maurice Kay VP, Longmore LJJ, Sir David Keene Citations: [2011] EWCA Civ 1581, [2012] 2 WLR 1119, … Continue reading The President of The Methodist Conference v Preston: CA 20 Dec 2011
EAT NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE ACT 1998 National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, Reg. 2(2) Unauthorised deductions from wages All three Claimants were foreign domestic workers employed in the Respondents’ households. The EAT held that the work done by each of the three Claimants for their respective employers was work to which regulation 2(2) of the National … Continue reading Chamsi-Pasha and Another v Udin and Another: EAT 8 Dec 2011
The employee claimed that the behaviour which gave rise to her dismissal was a protected disclosure, and that her motive was irrelevant. Held: The fact that what was disclosed was true was not conclusive to protect the disclosure. The court could look to motive, and a bad motive might defeat the protection even if the … Continue reading Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers Centre: EAT 22 Sep 2003
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATIONWhistleblowingProtected disclosureThe Employment Tribunal clearly found the Claimant was dismissed fairly by reason of redundancy. That finding meant that the claim that he was dismissed for whistleblowing failed. There was no error of law.It is reasonably arguable that the claim of per-employment detriments which failed as a matter of construction of Employment Rights … Continue reading Hinton v Argos Ltd: EAT 7 Oct 2011
EAT (Practice and Procedure : Striking-Out or Dismissal) The Employment Judge ought not to have struck out the Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] ICR 1126 applied. Judges: Richardson J Citations: [2011] UKEAT 0182 – 11 – 0909 Links: Bailii … Continue reading Pillay v Inc Research UK Ltd: EAT 9 Sep 2011
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosureUNFAIR DISMISSAL – Automatically unfair reasonsThe Tribunal erred in law in holding that words spoken at a meeting by the Claimant did not amount to information for the purposes of section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management v Geduld [2010] ICR 125 applied.The Tribunal … Continue reading Freeman v Ultra Green Group Ltd: EAT 9 Aug 2011
This appeal concerns the directly effective right of police officers under EU law to have the principle of equal treatment applied to them. The question raised is whether the enforcement of that right by means of proceedings in the Employment Tribunal is barred by the principle of judicial immunity, where the allegedly discriminatory conduct is … Continue reading P v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: SC 25 Oct 2017
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Claim in time and effective date of terminationClaimant given notice of dismissal subject to a right of appeal and on the basis that the employment would not terminate if she lodged an appeal by a prescribed deadline, which she was treated as having done – Claimant presents claim in advance of … Continue reading The Governing Body of Wishmorecross School v Balado: EAT 12 Jul 2011
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – CompensationPRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barkebr />The successful Claimant worked in the NHS from 1983 but for the Respondent Trust only from 2006. The dispute about this was raised in submissions on the basic award. The Employment Tribunal calculated back to 1983. The EAT allowed the jurisdictional point about Employment Rights … Continue reading Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust v Walker: EAT 24 Jun 2011
EAT RIGHTS ON INSOLVENCYThe Employment Judge erred in law in making an award of notice pay under section 182 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 when the employer company was not insolvent as defined in section 183(1) and (3). Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Walden [2000] IRLR 168 applied. Judges: Richardson j … Continue reading The Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills v Coward and Another: EAT 21 Jul 2011
mchoice_aaldersEAT2011 EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Claim in time and effective date of terminationThe employee was dismissed on notice expiring on 1 February 2011. On its expiry she would have had sufficient qualifying service to present a complaint of unfair dismissal. On 11 January 2011 during her period of notice she presented a complaint of unfair … Continue reading M-Choice UK Ltd v Aalders: EAT 10 Aug 2011
EAT UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGESThe Claimants made claims against their employer for an unlawful deduction from their wages contrary to the provisions of section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, in respect of money due under its bonus scheme for the years 2009 and 2010. The Claimants had been dismissed by reason of gross … Continue reading Hellewell and Another v Axa Services Ltd and Another: EAT 25 Jul 2011
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissalVICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosureThe ET erred in holding that the Appellant lecturer was fairly dismissed for misconduct in refusing to undertake duties which the Respondent required her to undertake. The ET failed to consider whether the employer had conducted a proper investigation into the agreement reached as to … Continue reading Smith v London Metropolitan University: EAT 21 Jul 2011
Appeal at the instance of the employee applicant in respect of a finding by the Employment Tribunal confirmed on review that in the relevant circumstances the respondent employer was not in breach of section 1(1) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 nor had they made any unlawful deductions from the applicant’s wages in contravention … Continue reading Laird v A K Stoddart Ltd: EAT 18 Jan 2001
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Retirement UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Polkey deduction Employee reaching retirement age requests extension – Employer purports to follow procedure under Schedule 6 of Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 and rejects request – Tribunal holds, on basis of admissions from employer’s witnesses, that the managers in question regarded themselves as absolutely bound by … Continue reading Compass Group Plc v Ayodele: EAT 14 Jul 2011
VICTIMISATION DICRIMINATION – Protected disclosure The Claimant alleged in her Particulars of Claim that the Respondent subjected her to a detriment because she had alleged in an email of 1 December 2015 that asking her to work certain hours would be a breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998. A list of issues agreed at … Continue reading Saha v Capita Plc: EAT 29 Nov 2018
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosureThe issue was whether a complaint under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 had been presented in time. The employment judge ruled that that issue should be decided when the Claimant’s other claims were considered on their merits, because evidence was required to decide whether the various detriments … Continue reading St John Ambulance v Mulvie: EAT 1 Jul 2011
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS Worker, employee or neither Agency relationships The Claimants were not employees of Respondent 4, on its insolvency the Secretary of State had no liability to them under s.182-188 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Judges: Serota QC J Citations: [2011] UKEAT 0571 – 10 – 1705 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Rights Act … Continue reading The Secretary of State for Business Innovations and Skills v Studders and Others: EAT 17 May 2011
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Automatically unfair reasonsUnfair dismissal – automatically unfair reasons – health and safety cases.Section 100(1)(e) should be applied in two stages. Firstly, the Tribunal should consider whether the criteria set out in that provision have been met, as a matter of fact. Were there circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed … Continue reading Oudahar v Esporta Group Ltd (Unfair Dismissal : Automatically Unfair Reasons): EAT 22 Jun 2011
Employee, Worker or Self-Employed – Section 230, (B) Employment Rights Act 1996 The claimant was elected to office as a non-executive director of the first respondent; it was his case that he suffered detriments as a result of making protected disclosures and he sought to bring a claim before the Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) under section … Continue reading Catt v English Table Tennis Association Ltd and Others: EAT 26 Aug 2022
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALAn act is on the ground that an employer has made a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 section 47B if it is done by reason of such a disclosure or because the act was inherently for such a reason. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan … Continue reading Vivian v Bournemouth Borough Council: EAT 4 Feb 2011
EAT WORKING TIME REGULATIONSVICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Whistleblowing1. The Claimant was a ‘mobile worker’ to whom the Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005 (‘the RTR’) applied. The Tribunal did not consider the RTR; and if it had considered the RTR ought to have found that the Claimant was correct in asserting that if the Respondent required … Continue reading Ross v Eddie Stobart Ltd: EAT 14 Jan 2011
The applicant cleaner sought compensation for unfair dismissal. The issue was whether she was an employee of the respondents, of their client where she did her work, or was not an employee at all. She worked for an agency, who sent her out to offices to work. The court was called upon to give guidance … Continue reading Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd v Dacas: CA 5 Mar 2004
The applicant had left on maternity leave. Before leaving, her salary had been increased, but the increase was not back-dated to any part of the period over which the regulations required her average earnings to be calculated for statutory maternity pay. She asserted discrimination, and unlawful deductions from her wages. Should her case be referred … Continue reading Alabaster v Woolwich Plc, Secretary of State for Social Security: CA 26 Feb 2002
The employee complained of her dismissal having made protected disclosures. The company said that the dismissal was for reasons of inadequate work. Held: The company’s appeal succeeded. Subject to possible qualifications said to be irrelevant to the present case, a tribunal required to determine ‘the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for … Continue reading Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti: CA 20 Oct 2017
EAT (Practice and Procedure) 1. While there is no express power provided by the ETA 1996 or the 2013 Rules made under it, the appointment of a litigation friend is within the power to make a case management order in the 2013 Rules as a procedural matter in a case where otherwise a litigant who … Continue reading Jhuti v Royal Mail Group Ltd and Others: EAT 31 Jul 2017
EAT Victimisation Discrimination: Dismissal – Whether the Employment Tribunal’s determination that dismissal was not automatically unfair under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 because the person who decided to dismiss was misled by the Claimant’s line manager (to whom she had made a protected disclosure) who engineered her dismissal because she had done so was … Continue reading Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti: EAT 19 May 2016
The claimant had argued that she had been unfairly dismissed since her dismissal was founded in her making a protected disclosure. The ET had not accepted either her explanation or that of the employer. Held: The employee’s appeal failed, and the employer’s succeeded. It was wrong to draw parallels with prohibited grounds reasons and unfair … Continue reading Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd: CA 17 Apr 2008
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Automatically unfair reasons Public Interest Disclosure Section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 inadmissible reason for dismissal – burden of proof – whether Protected Disclosures – case remitted to same Employment Tribunal for further consideration. Judges: His Honour Judge Clark Citations: [2007] UKEAT 0516 – 06 – 0203, UKEAT/0516/06, [2007] … Continue reading Dr Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd: EAT 2 Mar 2007
Lord Cairns said: ‘A reason for the dismissal of an employee is a set of facts known to the employer, or it may be of beliefs held by him, which cause him to dismiss the employee. If at the time of his dismissal the employer gives a reason for it, that is no doubt evidence, … Continue reading Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson: CA 1974
All information available to an employer at the date of the termination of the employment relationship is relevant when considering the fairness of dismissal, and also any information becoming available during the course of, for example, an internal appeal, even post-termination, is relevant. An employer may be considered to have acted unfairly if he refuses … Continue reading West Midlands Co-operative Society v Tipton: HL 1986
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALAn act is on the ground that an employer has made a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 section 47B if it is done by reason of such a disclosure or because the act was inherently for such a reason. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan … Continue reading Vivian v Bournemouth Borough Council: EAT 6 May 2011
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALReasonableness of dismissalS.98A(2) Employment Rights Act 1996The new Employment Tribunal on remission from the EAT correctly found the Claimants were unfairly dismissed for redundancy. It correctly construed s 98A(2) as not applicable where the Respondent failed to complete Step 2 of the SDDP: Davies applied. Judges: McMullen QC J Citations: [2011] UKEAT 0407 … Continue reading Peninsula Business Services Ltd v Rees and Others: EAT 21 Apr 2011
The claimant appealed refusal to award damages after an alleged failure to give a proper reference, saying that the decision in Fadipe could not stand with the later decision in Rhys-Harper. She said that she had suffered victimisation after making a protected disclosure, but after having left the company. The company said that the Act … Continue reading Woodward v Abbey National Plc: CA 22 Jun 2006
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neitherAppeal by an Army Cadet Force Adult Instructor from the judgment of an Employment Judge sitting alone that he was a volunteer and not in ’employment’ as defined by s68(1) Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as amended. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Judge was correct as his factual findings were … Continue reading Breakell v West Midlands Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Association Named As Shropshire Army Cadet Force: EAT 11 Apr 2011
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALProcedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissalCompensationContributory faultUnfair Dismissal under s98A(1) and 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996. Employment Tribunal find 100% contribution and deduction under s123(1). No compensatory award (save in respect of loss of statutory rights).No error in Employment Tribunal approach. Ingram (UKEAT/0601/06. 23 April 2007. Elias P) considered and followed. Citations: [2011] UKEAT 0501 … Continue reading Lambert v Vicomte Bernard De Romanet Ltd: EAT 18 Mar 2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Estoppel or abuse of process/AmendmentThe appeal was dismissed on issue estoppel. Issue estoppel applied not to the declarations made by the first Employment Tribunal, as apparently decided in the Pre Hearing Review judgment, but to the breach of contract issues that had been decided at that first hearing as stated … Continue reading Parker v Northumbrian Water: EAT 30 Mar 2011
The claimants had been employed by a company with a normal retirement age of 60. The company was sold to British Airways, wher eh normal age was 55. On being obliged to retire the claimed unfair dismissal. They now appealed dismissal of that claim. Held: The applicable normal age of retirement under an employment contract … Continue reading Cross, Gibson v British Airways Plc: CA 11 May 2006
Unfair Dismissal — Constructive Dismissal – Reason for Dismissal Including Some Other Substantial ReasonThe ET upheld the Claimant’s complaint of constructive unfair dismissal, finding that the Respondent’s conduct of an investigatory process into allegations of misconduct was such as to be likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence and amounted … Continue reading Retirement Security Ltd v Wilson: EAT 11 Jul 2019
EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Disciplinary and grievance procedure UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason (1) An employee who has been dismissed because of the breakdown of working relationships between himself and his colleagues (irrespective of whether he had been responsible for, or had contributed to, that breakdown) had not had … Continue reading Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust: EAT 18 Mar 2011
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – excluded employments – employee shareholder – Section 205A Employment Rights Act 1996 In September 2015, the Claimant had entered into a section 205A employee shareholder agreement. It was agreed that this had met the requirements provided such that the Claimant thereby became an employee shareholder and was thus excluded from the statutory … Continue reading Barrasso v New Look Retailers Ltd: EAT 22 Aug 2019
EATR UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal Employment Tribunal found dismissal for redundancy reason unfair under s98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 on two grounds; (i) selection (ii) alternative employment. As to (i) ET substituted own view as to a fair selection procedure and as to (ii) failed to consider whether employer’s attempts to find alternative … Continue reading Amazon.Co.Uk.Ltd v Hurdus: EAT 10 Feb 2011
Mrs Wallis was employed by the Ministry of Defence at the international school attached to SHAPE in Belgium. Mrs Grocott was employed by the Ministry in the British section of the Armed Forces North International School in the Netherlands. Both SHAPE and JFC are entities within the structure of NATO. They were recruited because they … Continue reading Ministry of Defence v Wallis and Grocott: CA 8 Mar 2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke An Employment Tribunal decision must comply in both form and substance with 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 SI No. 1861 and failure to do so will amount to an error of law; Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd v Wilcox [2006] EWCA … Continue reading Greenwood v NWF Retail Ltd: EAT 18 Feb 2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke An Employment Tribunal decision must comply in both form and substance with 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 SI No. 1861 and failure to do so will amount to an error of law; Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd v Wilcox [2006] EWCA … Continue reading Norman and Another v NWF Retail Ltd: EAT 18 Feb 2011
EAT Reason for dismissal including substantial other reasonable adjustmentsReasonableness of dismissalClaimant dismissed because major customer of Respondent stated that claimant was banned from its premises. Employment Tribunal held dismissal justified because of ‘some other substantial reason’. Respondent appealed.Held: case had to be remitted to Employment Tribunal as in the original decision there was no consideration … Continue reading Greenwood v Whiteghyll Plastics Ltd: EAT 6 Aug 2007
Following her resignation, the Claimant presented a claim form. The Respondent had written her a letter in August 2016 proposing that her employment be terminated on the basis of a settlement agreement. Her case was that this was a reaction to the news that she was pregnant, that there had been a history of various … Continue reading Harrison v Aryman Ltd (Admissibility of Evidence): EAT 27 Aug 2019
EAT REDUNDANCYThere was no error in the application of s221 and Gilbert to the calculation of the Claimant’s redundancy payment. Judges: McMullen QC J Citations: [2010] UKEAT 0767 – 10 – 1412 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 221 Employment Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428719
bullock_norfolkEAT11 EAT RIGHT TO BE ACCOMPANIED The Employment Tribunal did not err in holding that the Claimant, a foster carer, was not a worker within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and 1999. Accordingly she could not claim the right to trade union representation pursuant to section 10 of the Employment Rights Act … Continue reading Bullock v Norfolk County Council: EAT 24 Jan 2011
Construction of compromise agreement. Citations: [2005] EWCA Civ 532, [2005] ICR 1260, [2005] IRLR 552 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 8203 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Employment Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.224519
EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Consultation and other informationThe cap on ‘a week’s pay’ under s.227 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 does not apply to awards for compensation under reg. 15 (8) of TUPE for breach of the information and consultation obligations. Citations: [2010] UKEAT 0312 – 10 – 1911 Links: Bailii Employment Updated: … Continue reading Zaman and Others v Kozee Sleep Products Ltd (T/A Dorlux Beds UK): EAT 19 Nov 2010
The claimants were airline pilots employed by the respondent company with headquarters in Hong Kong. The court was asked whether an English Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear their complaints of unfair dismissal. Held: The pilots were employed in England so as to allow a claim for unfair dismissal here. Judges: Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, … Continue reading Crofts and others v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd and others: CA 19 May 2005
EAT Lindsay P J said: ‘We have before us the appeal of Mr John Sutherland in the matter Sutherland v. two respondents, Network Appliance Ltd and Network Appliance Inc. Ms McManus appears for the appellant and Mr Napier for both respondents. Although Ms McManus has a secondary and alternative argument, the appeal chiefly raises this … Continue reading Sutherland v Network Appliance Ltd and Another: EAT 15 May 2000
EAT WORKING TIME REGULATIONS – Holiday payCONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Sick pay and holiday payThe employee was entitled under his contract to be paid for leave taken on the basis of his ‘average’ working hours. In context this was basic hours plus overtime hours.The Employment Appeal Tribunal is bound by the judgment of the Court … Continue reading Crossland v Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd: EAT 18 Aug 2010
lEAT Working Time Regulation 1998 – detriment – Section 45A Employment Rights Act 1996 Unfair Dismissal – automatically unfair reason for dismissal – Section 101A Employment Rights Act 1996 The Claimant, who worked as a Kitchen Porter, had been denied his right to a rest break (contrary to Regulation 10 WTR and his contractual entitlement) … Continue reading Pazur v Lexington Catering Services Ltd: EAT 20 Aug 2019
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Wrongful dismissalEmployment Tribunal found Claimant guilty of serious misconduct for which dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses; but that it did not amount to gross misconduct therefore the dismissal was unfair. Applying s98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996, finding of unfair dismissal was … Continue reading Weston Recovery Services v Fisher: EAT 7 Oct 2010
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity MATERNITY RIGHTS AND PARENTAL LEAVE – PregnancyUNFAIR DISMISSAL – Contributory faultThe Employment Tribunal which found in favour of the Claimant in part did not show apparent bias on five grounds, although it made errors of fact on two of them. Observations disapproving the Respondent’s showing … Continue reading Nixon v Ross Coates Solicitors and Another: EAT 6 Aug 2010
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Striking-out/dismissal Preliminary issues Issue as to whether Claimant was dismissed under s95(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996 for purpose of her unfair dismissal claim ought to be dealt with as a preliminary issue at a PHR, rather than at a full merits hearing. Plainly it should on the basis of the Respondent’s … Continue reading Wm A Merrick (Formerly T/A Wm A Merrick and Co Solicitors) v Simpson: EAT 20 Aug 2010
EAT SEX DISCRIMINATIONBurden of proofPregnancy and discriminationUNFAIR DISMISSAL – Automatically unfair reasonsRegulation 10(3)(a) and Regulation 10(3)(b) of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 must be read together in determining whether there is a suitable available vacancy under Regulation 10(2). Judges: Ansell J Citations: [2010] UKEAT 0544 – 09 – 2708, [2011] ICR 75 Links: … Continue reading Simpson v Endsleigh Insurance Services Ltd and Others: EAT 27 Aug 2010
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – CompensationAn Employment Tribunal assessing loss under s123 Employment Rights Act 1996 did not err when it did not take account of the employer’s ability to pay, a matter outside the section. Judges: McMullen QC J Citations: [2010] UKEAT 1477 – 09 – 1407 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 123 … Continue reading Tao Herbs and Acupuncture Ltd v Jin: EAT 14 Jul 2010
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Written particulars The Employment Tribunal made two mistakes of fact which made the Judgment perverse. It could not be said to be unarguably right, and so was remitted to a different Employment Tribunal. The right under Employment Rights Act 1996 s1 to written particulars … Continue reading Parfums Givenchy Ltd v Finch: EAT 30 Jul 2010
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularityEmployment Judge wrongly purported to decide a claim of unfair dismissal when she had no jurisdiction because sitting alone – Decision revoked on review – Same Judge chairs fresh (full) Tribunal – Application that she recuse herself dismissed.Held: Judge should have recused herself – There was … Continue reading Dorbcrest Homes Ltd v Fishwick: EAT 6 Jul 2010
EAT UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGESThe Claimant (who was a dentist) entered into a contract to provide dental services for the Respondent. The Employment Tribunal found that he was not an ’employee’ within the meaning of section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 but that he was a ‘worker’ within the meaning of that provision. … Continue reading Community Dental Centres Ltd v Sultan- Darmon: EAT 12 Aug 2010
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Working outside the jurisdiction The Claimants were wives of service personnel working at NATO headquarters in Belgium and in the Netherlands – Because of that status they were eligible for, and they obtained, employment in schools attached to those headquarters – They were dismissed when their husbands’ service came to an … Continue reading Ministry of Defence v Wallis and Another: EAT 30 Jul 2010
EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGSEconomic technical or organisational reasonThe Employment Tribunal erred in taking into account a perceived breach of the consultation requirements of Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 regulation 13(6) in determining that the dismissals of two sample Claimants were unfair within the meaning of Employment Rights Act 1996 section 98(4). No … Continue reading Nationwide Building Society v Benn and Others: EAT 27 Jul 2010
Reason for dismissal must be assessed in context of the date notice given. Citations: Times 09-Jan-1997 Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 98 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – Parkinson v March Consulting Ltd EAT 3-Oct-1994 . . Appeal from – Parkinson v March Consulting Ltd EAT 24-Jul-1995 . . Lists of cited by … Continue reading Parkinson v March Consulting Ltd: CA 9 Jan 1997
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neitherThe Claimant employee was given notice that his contract would expire on 1 December 2008.By a letter dated 26 November 2008 the Respondent employer informed the Claimant employee ‘I write to confirm that you can be released today and will still be paid up to and including your … Continue reading Wedgewood v Minstergate Hull Ltd: EAT 13 Jul 2010
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Extension of time: reasonably practicableIt was not reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present his unfair dismissal claim in 3 months. But by waiting a further 11 days he went beyond a reasonable period: Employment Rights Act 1996 s111(2). The authorities on ‘reasonably practicable’ for primary limitation, and fault of advisers, … Continue reading Lezo v OCS Group UK Ltd: EAT 21 May 2010
In a case on the issue of sufficiency of qualifying service for bringing an ordinary case of unfair dismissal, the court considered the allocation of the burden of proof in employment cases. Held: The burden is upon he who is seeking to rely upon the exception to bring himself within it. The court also considered … Continue reading Smith v Hayle Town Council: CA 1978
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Compensation The Employment Tribunal found the Respondent unfairly dismissed the Claimant for raising a question about her statutory rights. She had been employed for 10 weeks and was entitled to one month’s notice. It awarded compensation effectively of 7 weeks’ pay. It found she would have been dismissed within that time in … Continue reading Ward v Ashkenazi: EAT 22 Mar 2010
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION: Protected disclosure The central question in this appeal was whether an employee/worker who complained of suffering a detriment from his current employer on the ground that he had made a protected disclosure could claim where that disclosure had been made not whilst employed by his current employer but whilst employed … Continue reading BP Plc v Elstone and Another: EAT 31 Mar 2010
EAT STATUTORY DISCIPLINE AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES:IMPACT ON COMPENSATIONThe Employment Tribunal took an irrelevant consideration into account when making an uplift under s31(3) of the Employment Rights Act 2002 and reducing a basic award under s112(5) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 when it took account of the death of the employer’s wife two years before … Continue reading Drewett v Penfold: EAT 7 Dec 2009
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reinstatement/Re-engagement Fingerprint officer found to have been unfairly dismissed. Tribunal ordered reinstatement to role of non-court going fingerprint officer. Appeal against order for reinstatement upheld and case remitted to a freshly constituted Tribunal to consider remedy including whether or not the dismissal was caused or contributed to by any action of … Continue reading Scottish Police Services Authority v McBride: EAT 30 Oct 2009
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION Whistleblowing Dismissal On an application for interim relief under sections 128-129 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 the Employment Judge erred in law in finding that such applications should be restricted to simple factual disputes. By doing so she added a requirement that had no statutory basis. Appeal allowed and remitted for … Continue reading Raja v The Secretary of State for Justice: EAT 15 Feb 2010
The claimant had been employed through an employment agency to carry out work for the respondent. He appealed against dismissal of his appeal against a ruling that he was not a worker for the respondent under the 1996 Act. He said that the Employment judge had not given him appropriate assistance as a litigant in … Continue reading Muschett v HM Prison Service: CA 2 Feb 2010
EAT Firefighter, who was also trade union health and safety representative, claimed that, having made a protected disclosure, he had suffered a detriment (section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996) and been refused permission as a health and safety representative to take time off for the performance of health and safety functions. Claim dismissed. … Continue reading Coats v Strathclyde Fire Board: EAT 3 Nov 2009
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: CompensationIn accordance with Employment Rights Act 1996 Section 123(7) the excess of an enhanced redundancy payment over the amount of a basic award reduces the compensatory award arrived at in accordance with Section 123(1).The Employment Tribunal erred in deducting an enhanced redundancy payment twice. Once from loss of entitlement or potential entitlement … Continue reading MacCulloch v Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd: EAT 25 Nov 2009
EAT PRACTICE and PROCEDURECompromiseSection 203(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’) deems as void provisions, which preclude a party from bringing proceedings before an Employment Tribunal, save in respect of agreements which satisfy certain specific requirements, which are set out in section 203(3) of ERA. Does that Employment Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine whether … Continue reading Industrious Ltd v Horizon Recruitment Ltd and Another: EAT 11 Dec 2009
EAT Whether, and, if so, in what circumstances, a director and controlling shareholder of an insolvent company may recover from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry payments in respect of debts falling within section 184 of the Employment Rights Act. Citations: [1997] UKEAT 516 – 97 – 1201, [1998] IRLR 120, [1998] ICR … Continue reading Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill: EAT 12 Jan 1997
The claimant worked for the local authority under a series of contracts. The employer denied that she had been continuously employed and there was no ‘irreducible minimum mutual obligation necessary to create a contract of service’. There were times when she had no work. Held: Given the authorities there was ample reason to find a … Continue reading Cornwall County Council v Prater: CA 24 Feb 2006
Uber drivers are workers The claimant Uber drivers sought the status of workers, allowing them to claim the associated statutory employment benefits. The company now appealed from a finding that they were workers. Held: The appeal failed (Underhill LJ dissenting) The drivers accepted the control of tee Uber app: ‘Even if drivers are not obliged … Continue reading Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others: CA 19 Dec 2018
Solicitor Firm Member was a Protected Worker The solicitor appellant had been a member of the firm, a limited liability partnership. She disclosed criminal misbehaviour by a partner in a branch in Africa. On dismissal she sought protection as a whistleblower. This was rejected, it being found that a member of such a firm was … Continue reading Clyde and Co LLP and Another v van Winkelhof: SC 21 May 2014
The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. He had returned to work, but again, did not receive the staff or guidance to allow him to do the work … Continue reading Walker v Northumberland County Council: QBD 16 Nov 1994
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION: Protected disclosureThe claimant, who had less than one year’s continuous employment fell out with his fellow directors and equal shareholders. He was removed as a director. His solicitors wrote on his behalf stating that they had given advice to their client as a shareholder, director and employee. The Employment Tribunal erred in … Continue reading Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld (Rev 1): EAT 6 Aug 2009
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALS.98A(2) ERAPolkey deductionContributory faultThe Employment Tribunal erred when if found procedural defects in the investigation by the Respondent of the allegations of the Claimant’s misconduct. In any event it ought to have allowed evidence and considered Employment Rights Act 1996 s 98A(2).It wrongly awarded compensation beyond the 6 weeks it found it would … Continue reading Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Roldan: EAT 2 Sep 2009
The employer was in financial difficulties. A new company was formed by a customer to acquire its assets, and the employees, including the claimant were taken on by the new company. The claimant was dismissed within a year after. On claiming unfair dismissal, the new company said that he had no continuity of employment from … Continue reading Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd: CA 30 Jul 2009
The claimant, a consultant surgeon had been subject to disciplinary proceedings by his employer. They were however conducted in a manner which breached his contract. The GMC had summarily dismissed the same allegations. The claimant now appealed against an award by the county court judge which had limited his damages to loss of earnings only. … Continue reading Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 31 Jul 2009
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Striking-out/dismissalOn remission by the EAT, the Employment Tribunal did not err when it heard evidence and then struck out the Claimant’s claims of dismissal and detriment contrary to Employment Rights Act 1996 s 44, following her complaints about health and safety. It noted her related claims for andpound;20m against the Respondent … Continue reading Iya-Nya v British Airways Plc: EAT 19 Aug 2009
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Worker, employee or neitherCONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Whether establishedREDUNDANCY: DefinitionPRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Split hearingsThe ET erred in holding that contracts for the employment of a locum consultant entered into in breach of the National Health Service (Appointment of Consultants) Regulations 1996 as amended were not ultra vires. However the ET did not err … Continue reading Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust v Lairikyengbam: EAT 21 Aug 2009
EAT Circumstances in which Tribunal erred in finding that employers had failed to comply with the statutory grievance procedure. Conflation of matters relevant to an assessment of fairness of procedure under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 with the narrow and more limited requirements of the SGP. Citations: [2009] UKEAT 0021 – 09 … Continue reading Bells Food Group Ltd v Latimer: EAT 28 Jul 2009
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: 2002 Act and pre-action requirementsA teacher was given notice to terminate her limited-term contract of employment before a meeting to discuss it. The Employment Tribunal correctly found this was a breach of the 2002 Act regime and automatically unfair contrary to Employment Rights Act 1996 s98A. The correct sequence is this: the … Continue reading Birdwell Primary School v Fitzgerald: EAT 28 May 2009
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION: Whistleblowing / Protected disclosure Employment Tribunal did not go beyond the remit directed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in further considering the Claimant’s claims after remission to it further consideration by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Citations: [2008] UKEAT 0088 – 08 – 2005 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also … Continue reading Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Scanlon: EAT 20 May 2008
EAT Jurisdictional Points
