EAT Unfair Dismissal – Constructive dismissal
Maternity Rights and Parental Leave – Sex discrimination
The Claimant was employed as a Magistrates’ Clerk and she brought successful claims to the Employment
(a) Ms Slee (‘the Claimant’) had been constructively unfairly dismissed by The Department for Constitutional Affairs (‘the Respondent’);
(b) The Respondent had failed to offer to the Claimant a suitable and available vacancy following the redundancy of her existing post contrary to regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 (‘the 1999 regulations’);
(c) The Claimant suffered a detriment for the reason that she took ordinary maternity leave and additional maternity leave contrary to regulation 19 of the 1999 Regulations; and
(d) The Respondent had unlawfully discriminated against the Claimant on grounds of her sex.
The Respondent appealed and the Employment Appeal Tribunal unanimously dismissed the appeal. It held that:
1. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to hold that the Respondent had committed a fundamental breach of the implied terms of mutual trust and confidence;
2. Regulation 10 of the 1999 Regulations applied as it was ‘not practicable by reason of redundancy to continue to employ [the Claimant] under her existing contract of employment’. This was a redundancy situation as the word ‘redundancy’ in this regulation had the same meaning as applied by the House of Lords in Murray v Foyle Meats  ICR 827 to the Northern Irish equivalent of section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 namely that the contract test does not apply (see Re Jones Will Trusts  1 Ch 1124, 1131 and Floor v Davis  AC 695,707);
3.The Claimant was entitled to make a claim under regulation 19 of the 1999 Regulations as she had ‘ been subjected to a detriment’ because she was pregnant as a result of the reasoning in Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC  ICR 337; and
4. The Claimant was entitled to claim for sexual discrimination for the same reasons as are set out in paragraph 3 above.
 UKEAT 0349 – 06 – 1907
Cited – London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju CA 11-Nov-2004
Final Straw Act – Non-Trivial
The claimant had been involved in protracted disputes with the respondent. The respondent appealed a finding of constructive dismissal and victimisation. He had attended a tribunal hearing and the employer had refused to pay his salary whilst he was . .
Cited – Floor v Davis (Inspector of Taxes) HL 1979
The House considered whether the meaning of the phrase ‘a person having control’ extended to control by more than one person. This depended on whether the word ‘person’ in the singular was to be construed as including the plural.
Held: The . .
Cited – In Re Jones Will Trusts ChD 11-Jan-1965
Buckley J said that the words ‘unless the contrary intention applies’ mean ‘unless the contrary appears from any surrounding circumstances which carry conviction to the mind of the court’. He also agreed with the submission ‘that the evidence . .
Cited – Murray and Another v Foyle Meats Ltd (Northern Ireland) HL 8-Jul-1999
The company decided to make redundancies. The applicants, all selected, had worked in more than one section of the plant. All employees worked under the same contract, but employees were chosen only from the one section. The complainants said that . .
Cited – Yeboah v Crofton CA 31-May-2002
The industrial tribunal had made a finding of direct race discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found the decision perverse, and ordered a rehearing. The applicant appealed that order.
Held: The EAT must be careful not to take . .
Cited – Regina v Bristol Magistrates Court and others ex parte Junttan Oy HL 23-Oct-2003
The improper use of machinery had resulted in the death of an employee, and the applicant was prosecuted under the 1974 Act, but complained that the prosecution should have been under the Regulations. The directive required member states to apply . .
Cited – Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary HL 27-Feb-2003
The applicant was a chief inspector of police. She had been prevented from carrying out appraisals of other senior staff, and complained of sex discrimination.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The tribunal had taken a two stage approach. It . .
Appeal from – Slee v Secretary of State for Justice (1) Admn 19-Nov-2007
The claimant sought compensation under the Regulations as a result of her dismissal on the re-organisation of the Magistrates Court at Wimbledon from her position as court clerk. The EAT had allowed her claim for unfair dismissal. Her position on . .
See Also – Secretary of State for Justice v Slee (2) Admn 22-Jan-2010
The claimant had been unfairly dismissed from her position as justices’ clerk. After appeal her additional claims for retirement and other compensation under the 1978 Regulations had been remitted to the Employment tribunal which had reconsidered . .
See Also – Secretary of State for Justice v Slee CA 24-Jan-2011
The claimant had been found to have been unfailry dismissed by respondent, on the termination of her employment as an assistant Clerk to the Justices. The EAT had upheld her claim, but had at first rejected her claim for long-term and retirement . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Legal Professions
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.259815