EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
An 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 [2001] ICR 1065 and Amnesty International v Ahmed [2009] ICR 1450 applied.
By contrast the question of whether a claimant was subject to a detriment by such an act is one of causation.
The time limit for bringing a claim under ERA section 47B runs from the date of the act done on the grounds of the protected disclosure not from the last of the chain of events linked to but not on grounds of that disclosure or from the detriment caused by the act. London Borough of Harrow v Knight [2003] IRLR 40 considered. The Employment Tribunal did not err in holding the Appellant’s claim under ERA section 47B to be out of time. The Employment Tribunal did not err in dismissing the Appellant’s claims for ‘automatic’ and ordinary unfair dismissal under ERA sections 103A and 98.
Judges:
Slade J
Citations:
[2011] UKEAT 0254 – 10 – 0605
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Rights Act 1996 47B
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Amnesty International v Ahmed EAT 13-Aug-2009
amnesty_ahmedEAT2009
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Direct discrimination
RACE DISCRIMINATION – Indirect discrimination
RACE DISCRIMINATION – Protected by s. 41
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal
Claimant, of . .
Cited – Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan HL 11-Oct-2001
The claimant was a police sergeant. After many years he had not been promoted. He began proceedings for race discrimination. Whilst those were in course, he applied for a post elsewhere. That force wrote to his own requesting a reference. In the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434912
