Employment tribunals and courts
In Kulkarni v Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Trust and Secretary of State for Health [2009] IRLR 829 CA, the Court of Appeal held that NHS doctors subject to disciplinary proceedings are entitled to be represented at any disciplinary hearing by a qualified lawyer instructed by their medical protection organisation.
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers unfair dismissal and pension loss.
In Central & North West London NHS Foundation Trust v Abimbola EAT/0542/08, the EAT held that the employment tribunal had wrongly excluded highly relevant factors from its consideration of whether or not it was practicable to order reinstatement following a finding of unfair dismissal.
In Metropolitan Resources Ltd v Churchill Dulwich Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2009] IRLR 700 EAT, the EAT held that, when determining whether or not there has been a service provision change within the meaning of the TUPE Regulations 2006, tribunals should consider if the activities carried out by the alleged transferee are essentially or fundamentally the same as those carried out by the alleged transferor.
In Rank Nemo (DMS) Ltd v Coutinho [2009] EWCA Civ 454 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employment tribunal had erred in law in refusing to accept a victimisation claim based on the respondent's failure to pay an award of compensation.
The Court of Appeal had held that there is no reason in principle why a director and controlling shareholder cannot also be an employee.
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EAT/0313/08, the EAT held that an employee's unambiguous resignation was effective and could not be unilaterally withdrawn once it had been accepted by the employer.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.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to employment tribunals and courts.