The tribunal had ruled that a document sent by a Union District Secretary to head office claiming dispute benefit for the Claimant and other employees of the Appellant employer; although admissible in evidence at common law, would not be received into evidence because its prejudicial effect on those employees it did not affect outweighed its probative value in other cases. The EAT was asked in the case to which the document was relevant, whether the Employment Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear claims of unfair dismissal was excluded under section 62 because the Claimants were dismissed while on strike.
Held: The document should have been admitted. In the alternative, if the Employment Tribunal had a discretion to exclude the document, that discretion was wrongly exercised in law in these circumstances.
Talbot J said: ‘But that leaves a matter of some importance to be decided, whether that gives a discretion to an Industrial Tribunal to refuse to admit evidence which is otherwise admissible and prerogative. In our judgment there is no such discretion in an Industrial Tribunal to refuse to admit evidence which is admissible and prerogative of one or more of the issues before it. That opinion has sufficiently disposed of this appeal because in our judgment the Industrial Tribunal were wrong in law in holding that they have a discretion to refuse to admit such evidence and in so refusing to admit it.’
Judges:
Talbot J
Citations:
[1980] ICR 816
Statutes:
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 62
Cited by:
Cited – Digby v East Cambridgeshire District Council EAT 30-Nov-2006
EAT Unfair dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal
Practice and Procedure – Admissibility of evidence
Total exclusion of evidence relating to final written warning inextricably linked with sanction of . .
Doubted (obiter) – Snowball v Gardner Merchant EAT 1987
The employee claimed that she had been sexually harassed by her manager. In the course of her evidence the employers sought to cross-examine her as to her general attitude towards sexual matters, based on events which had occurred during the course . .
Cited – Krelle v C Ransom Tradeteam Ltd EAT 27-Jan-2006
EAT Unfair Dismissal: Reason for Dismissal including Substantial Other Reason:
Practice and Procedure: Appellate Jurisdiction / Reasons / Burns-Barke
ET did not state what acts or omissions . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.393371
