Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2007] All ER (D) 174 (Oct)
Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal
Judge:

Judge Ansell, Mr M Clancy and Mr G Lewis

Representation Andrew Edge (instructed by Ashby Cohen) for the employee.
  John Falkenstein (instructed by TunTum Housing Association) for the employer.
Judgment Dates: 12 October 2007

Catchwords

Employment - Protected disclosure - Time limit for bringing claim - Employee dismissed after making qualifying protected disclosures - Employee presenting claims before employment tribunal - Tribunal chairman rejecting claim for detriment on basis of employee's failure to lodge grievance with employer - Chairman instructing employee to lodge grievance and informing claimant that re-instatement of claim not requiring issue of fresh claim form - Tribunal subsequently upholding employee's claims - Whether tribunal having jurisdiction to hear detriment claim - , s 47B, 103A.

The Case

Employment Protected disclosure. In the instant case, where the employee's claim for detriment falling short of dismissal in relation to certain qualifying protected disclosures under s47B of the had initially been rejected on the basis that the employee had not submitted a grievance, and where the employee had failed to submit a new claim form within the required time limit in reliance upon the original tribunal's chairman's assurances that no new claim form was required, the employment appeal tribunal ruled that the tribunal had been right to accept jurisdiction to hear the employee's claim. Accordingly, the employer's appeal was dismissed.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.