Practice and Procedure
The appeal and cross-appeal challenge
(i) whether the detriment claims are in time in circumstances where the grievance detriment claim failed; and
(ii) whether the grievance detriment claim was wrongly rejected on the basis of too narrow an approach to the list of issues agreed in the case.
Both appeal and cross-appeal succeeded. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that since the Claimant failed to prove that there were any actionable detrimental acts that post-dated 30 March 2014, there were no ongoing similar acts or failures to act that could form part of a series for the purposes of enlarging time under s.48(3)(a).
Further, it was not open to the Tribunal to find that there was a connection or continuum between the established and proven acts that gave rise to detriments, occurring no later than 30 March 2014, and the subsequent act relied on by the Claimant in relation to the grievance that was not proven. The proven acts that occurred no later than 30 March 2014 may have had continuing consequences in terms of the detriment experienced by the Claimant but on any view, there were no further proven acts after that date.
In the unusual circumstances of this case (given the subsequent materially changed circumstances and the Claimant’s pleaded case in relation to the grievance) the Employment Tribunal was in error in sticking slavishly as it did to issue 7a as originally formulated. That approach prevented the Employment Tribunal from discharging its core duty of determining the case in accordance with the evidence permitted to be adduced. It meant that the Employment Tribunal did not do justice between the parties.
Judges:
Simler J DBE
Citations:
[2018] UKEAT 0020 – 16 – 1903
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
At EAT (1) – Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti EAT 19-May-2016
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 . .
At EAT (2) – Jhuti v Royal Mail Group Ltd and Others EAT 31-Jul-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 . .
At CA – Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti CA 20-Oct-2017
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 . .
Cited by:
At EAT (3) – Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti SC 27-Nov-2019
‘if a person in the hierarchy of responsibility above the employee determines that she (or he) should be dismissed for a reason but hides it behind an invented reason which the decision-maker adopts, the reason for the dismissal is the hidden reason . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608292