Employment disputes
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employment tribunal was not wrong to hold that a claim was out of time and there was no continuing act of discrimination. Nor was it wrong not to exercise its discretion to hear the claim on just and equitable grounds.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employment tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear claims against British Airways for non-payment of flying allowances to cabin crew who had not been able to fly because of an airport closure.
In Ali v Birmingham City Council EAT/0313/08, the EAT held that an employee's unambiguous resignation was effective and could not be unilaterally withdrawn once it had been accepted by the employer. It is only in exceptional circumstances that words of resignation should not be taken at their face value
In Tradition Securities and Futures SA v X and another EAT/0202/08, the EAT held that, where an employee of a French company had worked in Paris for three years before transferring to the company's London office for two years, and complained of unlawful sex discrimination throughout all five years of her employment, the employment tribunal had jurisdiction to hear only the complaints about her alleged treatment in London.
In Haine and another v Day [2008] IRLR 642, the Court of Appeal held that a protective award made after the employer company went into liquidation in respect of its failure to consult before making collective redundancies was a provable, and therefore potentially recoverable, debt.
In Corr (administratix of the estate of Thomas Corr (deceased)) v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] UKHL 13, the House of Lords held that the employer of a man who was injured at work and, as a consequence, suffered severe depression that led to suicide, was liable under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 for loss attributable to his suicide.
In Hutchins v Permacell Finesse Ltd (in administration) EAT/0350/07, the EAT held that the starting point for determining a protective award is 90 days' pay, even where fewer than 100 redundancies are involved and the minimum consultation period is 30 days.
Where the Central Arbitration Committee has found an employer to be in breach of certain obligations under the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004, the EAT may order the employer to pay a financial penalty to the secretary of state. In the first case to arise on this point, Amicus v MacMillan Publishers Ltd EAT/0185/07, the EAT ordered the employer to pay £55,000 in respect of a "very grave" breach.
Judith Harris, professional support lawyer at Addleshaw Goddard, outlines the latest legal rulings.
In Transport & General Workers' Union v Brauer Coley Ltd (in administration) [2007] IRLR 207 EAT the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that where a trade union is successful in proceedings brought for failure to consult on collective redundancies, the protective award cannot be claimed by any employees in respect of whom the trade union was not recognised by the employer.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to employment disputes.