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 sustainable. It was not.
Judges:
Mitting J
Citations:
[2016] UKEAT 0020 – 16 – 1905, [2016] ICR 1043, [2016] IRLR 854
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Rights Act 1996 103A
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – 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 EAT (1) – 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 . .
At EAT (1) – Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti EAT 19-Mar-2018
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 . .
At EAT (1) – Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti SC 27-Nov-2019
The employee was a whistleblower, but her manager in response bullied her and dismissed her on the grounds of alleged poor performance. J suffered stress and was away from work and unable to defend herself. The decision maker, acting honestly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.566914