Employment Disability. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the employment tribunal had been correct to find it did not have jurisdiction to hear the employee's claim for disability discrimination based on the employer's failure to make reasonable adjustments as it had applied the correct test for determining when the time would run for such a claim.
Unfair dismissal Determination whether procedure fair or unfair. The employees had been employed as social workers by the employing local authority. They had been subject to disciplinary procedures under the simplified procedure. However, following a review into serious failings at the authority, the employees were then subjected to a more formal disciplinary process. The employees' were summarily dismissed. Their appeals were dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, finding that the second disciplinary proceedings had not been barred by the doctrine of res judicata, nor had the doctrine of abuse of process been engaged.
Employment Trade Union. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) allowed the appeal of Working Links (Employment) Ltd against the decision of an employment tribunal at a pre-hearing review that it had recognised the Public and Commercial Services Union for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The EAT found that the tribunal had not identified clear evidence that the respondent had been recognised as a trade union.
Employment Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) allowed an appeal by the Ministry of Defence, in a case where a British soldier of African origin had been subjected to two incidents of racial abuse; one by an employee of a sub-contractor and the other by a sergeant in the army. The EAT held that the employee of the sub-contractor could not be held to be the agent of the British Army. The EAT also held that an award of 12,000 was excessive for a one-off remark made by the sergeant to the soldier, and reduced the award to 6,000.
Employment Remuneration. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) allowed the appeal of three firefighters, who had refused to 'act up' during industrial action, and continued to refuse to do so after industrial action ceased. The employer had made deductions in response to that refusal and the employees claimed the deductions had been unlawful. The EAT held that the deductions had been unlawful.
European Union Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77-388 (on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment) and art 135(1)(g) of Council Directive (EC) 2006-112 (on the common system of value added tax). The request had been made by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (England and Wales) in proceedings between Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees Ltd (Wheels) and others and the Revenue and Customs Commissioners (England and Wales) concerning the latter's refusal to exempt fund management services supplied to Wheels and others from VAT.
Libel and slander Privilege. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that comments contained in witness statements provided on behalf of the defendant in costs proceedings between the parties had been subject to absolute privilege and accordingly could not form the basis of a defamation action commenced by the claimant.
Unfair dismissal Jurisdiction. The employee was a German national, and the wife of a British serving soldier who was employed to manage a children's play area in Germany under a contract made in Germany orally for an employer based in Germany. She appealed against the employment tribunal's decision that she was not entitled to pursue an unfair dismissal claim in England. In dismissing the appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had been entitled to come to the conclusion that it had.
Employment Discrimination. The employee, a Nigerian national, had been employed as a domestic worker by the employer. She had brought a number of claims before the employment tribunal which held, amongst other things, that the mistreatment she had suffered by the employer had not been direct or indirect discrimination based on her race or national origin. The employment appeal tribunal (EAT) dismissed the employee's appeal that, amongst other things, she had been mistreated on account of her being a migrant worker. The EAT held that her mistreatment had been due to her vulnerability on socio-economic grounds.
Employment Unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) allowed the appeal of the employer against the failure of the employment tribunal (the tribunal) to make any deduction in the compensation awarded to reflect the likelihood of the employee, who had been dismissed one year after he had turned 65, being fairly dismissed had the correct procedures been followed. The employee cross-appealed from the rejection of the victimisation claim and the Equality and Human Rights Commission intervened in support of the crossappeal. The EAT held that the judgment of the tribunal in rejecting the employee's post-employment victimisation case would be upheld and his appeal (actually pursued by way of a cross-appeal) on that point would be dismissed.