Employment disputes
The Court of Appeal has handed down its full judgment overturning an injunction preventing British Airways cabin crew from striking.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the date of a conditional resignation cannot constitute the effective date of termination regardless of any agreement between the employer and employee.
In Shanahan Engineering v Unite the Union EAT/0411/09, the EAT held that an employment tribunal was right to find that, in relation to collective redundancy consultation, although a customer's instruction amounted to "special circumstances", absolving the employer of the need to start consultation 30 days in advance of the first redundancy, it did not absolve it of all obligations to consult. However, the tribunal should have taken into account the special circumstances of the case in setting the level of the protective award.
Richard Ryan, associate, Helen Ward, associate, and Tori O'Neil, trainee solicitor, Addleshaw Goddard, detail the latest rulings.
The Court of Appeal has held that, where a claimant is alleging that separate incidents form one continuous act for the purposes of extending the normal time limit within which to bring a claim for racial discrimination, a relevant but not conclusive factor is whether the same individuals or different individuals were involved in the separate incidents.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that employees, who successfully claim discrimination, are entitled to be compensated for any injury to health or injury to feelings caused by the act complained of, even if they were unaware that the act complained of was discriminatory.
In Muschett v HM Prison Service [2010] EWCA Civ 25 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an agency worker had neither a contract of employment nor a contract with the end user personally to carry out work. Accordingly, he could not bring complaints of unfair or wrongful dismissal, or of unlawful discrimination, against the end user.
In Chagger v Abbey National plc and another [2009] EWCA Civ 1202 CA, the Court of Appeal confirmed that employment tribunals should ask a Polkey-type question when considering loss of earnings flowing from a discriminatory dismissal. The Court also ruled that, in appropriate cases, compensation for loss of earnings may include an element of "stigma" loss.
In Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and others [2010] IRLR 70 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a group of car valeters were employees, despite the fact that their written contracts with the valeting company stated that they were independent contractors, and contained clauses allowing "substitution of labour" and the "right to refuse work".
The Court of Appeal has held that an employee who was employed under a series of fixed-term contracts and whose contract was terminated could bring a claim of unfair dismissal despite the fact that he was employed to work outside Great Britain. Territorial limitations to unfair dismissal rights should be modified where necessary to enable a right emanating from European law to be enforced.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to employment disputes.