Employment Termination of employment. The employee was dismissed from her employment one day short of a year's continuous service. The issue was whether her attendance at a meeting with the employer and a client, at the employer's request amounted to 'work' for the purpose of calculating continuous employment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that, on the facts, the employment tribunal had been entitled to conclude that it did not.
Unlawful deduction from wages Jurisdiction. The employer's claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was upheld by the employment tribunal. The employer appealed on the ground that the tribunal had had no jurisdiction to make the orders it had made. In allowing the appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment judge had had no jurisdiction to make the declarations which he had. In those circumstances, the judge's orders were set aside.
Employment Unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a nurse who had been dismissed by her employer, but following an internal appeal had been reinstated with certain conditions imposed on her employment had been constructively dismissed. The matter would be remitted to the employment tribunal for reconsideration.
Redundancy Dismissal by reason of redundancy. Following their selection for redundancy,the employees brought a claim for unfair dismissal in the employment tribunal. The tribunal found that the employees had been unfairly dismissed and that there had been no evidence that they might have been dismissed had a fair procedure been followed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the employer's appeal against the unfair dismissal finding, but held that there had been evidence that the employees might have been dismissed following a fair procedure and remitted the matter to the tribunal for reconsideration.
Employment Dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal of certain employees who had challenged the findings of the employment tribunal (the tribunal) in a situation where employees of residential care homes had been asked by the employer to agree to changes to their employment contracts. 96% of the employees had agreed to changes but 32 employees had not. The employer was required under s 188 (1) of theTrade Union and Labour Relations (Consultation) Act 1992 to consult with the employees before they were made redundant. The tribunal had found that the employer had written to those members of staff who had not returned signed new contracts to advise them that the employer would now enter into collective consultation in relation to its proposal to terminate their contracts and offer re-engagement on the new terms and conditions. The EAT held that the conclusion to which the tribunal had come had not been one of fact, approached by proper legal reasoning.
Income tax Option. The First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) allowed the appeal of a taxpayer who had claimed that 30,000 of a 75,700 payment he had received from his former employer had been the return of the sum paid by him to purchase an option under an enterprise management incentive scheme and should therefore not be taxable.
Unfair dismissal Redundancy. The employee had been dismissed by reason of redundancy, when the employer a small charity had run into financial difficulty. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) had found the dismissal to be unfair as there had been no real consultation. The employer appealed, the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal and refused to reduce the compensation awarded by the tribunal.
Employment Contract of service. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld a finding that the terms of a collective agreement regarding when the defendant employer should allow prison officers to take time off in lieu of additional hours worked had not been incorporated into the claimant employee's contract of employment. There had simply been no evidence to support the claimant's submissions that those terms had been incorporated.
Employment Statutory Redundancy. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) allowed the employee's appeal against a costs order made against him at the employment tribunal, after he had withdrawn the claims he had made before that tribunal. The EAT held that even if the employee could be said to have acted unwisely in withdrawing his claim for a statutory redundancy payment, it could not fairly be said that he had acted unreasonably in pursuing those claims.
Employment Remuneration. In 2007, the employer and two unions reached a three year agreement regarding pay for the employees. That agreement provided two alternatives for pay in 2009. In 2009, the employer elected to increase the employees' pay by the lower of the two alternatives. The employees brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages. The employment tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claim and the employees appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the employees' appeal on the basis that properly construed, the wording in respect of 2009 entitled the employees to a 2.5% increase in 2009.