Cases - Employment Appeal Tribunal
Royal Bank of Scotland v Nwosuagwu-Ibe - victimisation not particularised in claim, and burden of proof
Tribunal was wrong to find victimisation in relation to a matter which had not been particularised as such in claim form or witness statements. EAT repeats the position that - under Race Relations Act 1976, the reverse burden of proof does not apply to victimisation claims (note that this is no longer the case under the Equality Act 2010 sec 136.)
Meter U Ltd v Ackroyd & Ors, Meter U Ltd v Hardy & Ors - TUPE: ‘workforce’ does not include ‘corporate franchisees’
Corporate franchisees do not fall within the definition of ‘workforce’ for the purposes of TUPE Regulations 2006 Reg 7(2). Provided the use of corporate franchisees is not a sham, the dismissal of employees who do not wish to become franchisees after transfer may be for an economic technical or organisational reason.
Abendshine & Others v Sunderland City Council - equal pay claims, statutory grievances, and named comparators
For the purpose of the (now-revoked) statutory grievance procedures, it is not a valid objection to the tribunal's jurisdiction that comparators named in tribunal proceedings differ from those originally identified in the stage one grievance.
The Cause Lists, showing cases listed for hearing during week commencing 27th February 2012 in the EAT in England & Wales.
Claims such as unfair dismissal cannot be brought where the employment contract upon which they are based was illegal. There is no exception to this rule where the claimant has allegedly been the victim of trafficking, particularly since that claimant has other legal avenues through which to enforce their rights in respect of that.
Commercial Motors (Wales) Ltd v Howley - TUPE, date of effective transfer and breach of duty to inform and consult
The effective date of a relevant transfer for the purposes of TUPE protection was the date of the conditional sale agreement and the taking over of the running of the business (2 February 2009) even though there was a subsequent sales agreement on 6 March 2009.
CK Heating Ltd v Doro - compensation reduction for contributory misconduct based solely on claimant's actions and culpability
Reductions of compensation given in unfair dismissal cases for contributory misconduct must be based solely on an assessment of whether a claimant's behaviour was culpable: a tribunal is not entitled to look at factors beyond that (such as whether the employer was in any event in breach of contract, for example).