Employment Redundancy. Servisair UK Ltd dismissed certain employees on grounds of redundancy. The employees brought proceedings before the employment tribunal (the tribunal) which held that the dismissals had been unfair as there had been no redundancy situation and therefore no potentially fair reason for the employees' dismissals. Servisair appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal on the basis that the tribunal judge had erred in her statement and application of the redundancy test as set out in Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd IRLR 562. The matter was remitted to be heard afresh by a new tribunal.
Redundancy Payment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employees' appeal against the employment tribunal's decision to dismiss their claims for enhanced redundancy payments, held that the tribunal had failed to address the evidence adduced by the employees that supported their case that the enhanced redundancy payment scheme in question had operated without exception for all employees. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the EAT.
Employment Redundancy. The employer carried out a cost-reduction exercise. A colleague of the employee, C, volunteered for redundancy, but that offer was refused by the employer and the employee was made redundant instead. The employee successfully brought proceedings for unfair dismissal. The employer appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held, in dismissing the appeal, that the tribunal had not erred by failing to take into account the totality of the dismissal process, nor had it taken into account the fact that C had resigned shortly after the redundancy exercise.
Employment Equality of treatment of men and women. The Supreme Court gave guidance on the interpretation of s1(6) of the in circumstances where the appellants successfully argued that male employees of the respondent local authority were 'in the same employment' as they were, notwithstanding the fact that they were employed on different terms and conditions and at different establishments from the appellants.
Unfair dismissal Termination by consent. The employee who had been employed by a recruitment agency to work for another company was terminated. The employer could no longer provide him with work under the original contract and his employment was terminated. He brought proceedings before an employment tribunal (the tribunal) which concluded that termination had been consensual. He appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal which took the view that the tribunal had been wrong in its conclusions and that the matter should be remitted to a freshly constituted tribunal for re-consideration.
European Union Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Council Directive (EEC) 76-207 (on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions), as amended by Directive 2002-73-EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the Framework Agreement on Parental Leave, contained in the Annex to Council Directive (EC) 96-34 (on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive (EC) 97-75. The request had been made in proceedings between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Rural Support Service concerning her dismissal following her return to work after taking parental leave.
Income tax Pay as you earn system. The defendant, who was from Greece, was a director and the only shareholder of a company (the company) which carried on business in the UK, of which the claimant was a director and, until a certain date, an employee.The defendant agreed that the claimant would have an interest in the company and, accordingly, a deed was signed which required the defendant to make a series of payments to the claimant. The claimant brought proceedings claiming payment under the deed. The issue was whether the payments under the deed were payments of employment income and whether the defendant had sufficient tax presence in the UK to be obliged to deduct tax. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim, held that the payments were employment income from which the defendant had been obliged to deduct tax.
Unfair dismissal Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the employer union's appeal against the decision of the employment tribunal that the employee had been unfairly dismissed. The EAT took the view that the tribunal's failure to ask and answer certain relevant questions meant that the tribunal's decision had not been compliant with the requirement to give proper reasons for a decision.
Employment Contract of service. The claimant was the former CEO of the defendant company. On his retirement, he was to be paid a sum under an agreement. An issue arose as to whether PAYE should be deducted from the payment to be made under the agreement. The Chancery Division held that the agreement, properly construed, meant that the sum should be paid to the claimant net of any PAYE due from him as a result of the payment.
European Union Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union ruled on an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3043 of 25 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under art 81 EC Treaty and art 53 of the European Economic Area Agreement (COMP-39.180 Aluminium fluoride), concerning a worldwide pricefixing and market-sharing cartel on the world aluminium fluoride market and, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.