In Leicestershire County Council v Unison [2006] IRLR 810 CA, the Court of Appeal holds that a tribunal was entitled to make the maximum protective award in respect of a group of employees who had been dismissed and offered new terms without consultation with the relevant unions.
In Brunel University and another v Vaseghi and another EAT/0307/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that the need to get to the truth in discrimination cases can override the rule that prevents settlement discussions between parties' representatives from being admissible as evidence.
In Brash-Hall v Getty Images Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 531 CA, the Court of Appeal holds that an employee dismissed in circumstances that amounted to sex discrimination, but who would have subsequently been dismissed for redundancy in any event, was not entitled to recover compensation reflecting an enhanced redundancy package.
In Clarke and others v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council; Wilson and others v Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council [2006] IRLR 324 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that there is no duty on an Acas conciliation officer to advise on the merits of a claim before the employee enters into a binding settlement via a COT3 agreement.
IRS Employment Review looks at decisions on procedural points that have arisen in the EAT and Court of Appeal in the time since its last procedural round-up in December 2005.
In Cornwall County Council v Prater [2006] EWCA Civ 102 CA, the Court of Appeal holds that a lack of mutuality of obligation during "gaps" between successive teaching assignments over a period of 10 years did not, of itself, prevent each separate assignment from constituting an individual contract of employment.
In CMC Group plc v Zhang [2006] All ER (D) 197 (Mar) CA, the Court of Appeal has held that a clause in a compromise agreement allowing an employer to reclaim the full amount paid if the other party broke any of its terms was not valid.
The Court of Appeal has handed down an important decision emphasising the wide discretion that an employment tribunal has to make a 'Polkey reduction' - a ruling that dismissal would have occurred, or would probably have occurred even if a fair procedure or proper investigation had been followed - in an unfair dismissal case.