1/ Gwynedd Council v Barratt & Hughes: CA clarifies that the lack of a right to appeal isn't determinative (or determinative save exceptionally) of a redundancy unfair dismissal claim, but merely one issue among many when considering fairness.
2/ B&H were employed as secondary school PE teachers. Their school closed, as did all primary schools in the area, to be replaced with a super school, providing education all the way through primary & secondary levels. On closure, B&H's contracts terminated.
3/ Staffing at the new school was by application process, with unsuccessful candidates being made redundant. B&H applied for the relevant posts in the new school but were unsuccessful. They weren't given a right to appeal & the school said it'd have been futile.
), much of the CA judgment concerns Welsh school staffing regulations. Fascinating as they are, I'm going to skip that part of the judgment in this thread.
5/ The point of wider interest concerns appeals against redundancy decisions. The CA noted that there's no general rule that dismissal for redundancy without an appeal 'must' be unfair where no internal appeal mechanism is provided in the contract of employment.
6/ The CA settled on a finding that the correct position was that a redundancy dismissal would not be unfair 'only' because of failure to provide an appeal hearing - it's 1 factor to consider among many in determining fairness.
7/ Approving the EAT, the CA made clear that the absence of an appeal isn't determinative of unfairness, & there's no 'truly exceptional circumstances' test to save from unfairness a redundancy process lacking a right to appeal.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Opalkova v Acquire Care Ltd is a (short) must-read judgment on the application of the ET's powers to make a PTO (or costs order) under r.76(1)(b) (i.e. where the claim or response had no reasonable prospect of success).
2/ The facts of the case aren't important. What's important though is that O's ET1 contained 6 bases of claim, under 3 of which she succeeded. O applied for a PTO. The ET denied the application, in part because AC succeeded in responding to 3 of the 6 bases of claim.
3/ The relevant part of ET Rules r.76 is set out below. In considering whether the response had no reasonable prospect of success, the EJ considered the response as a whole & the circumstances in the round. HHJ Tayler held this to be in error.
1/ Amdocs Systems v Langton: an important warning to employers to pay close attention to the insured benefits they offer employees & a need to very carefully word entitlements intended to be limited to what the insurer from time to time covers. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6124becb…
2/ L joined AS's predecessor, which AS acquired. His job offer & contract included income payment protection in the following terms:
3/ On transfer, AS presented that the IPP scheme wouldn't be affected, & L signed a form confirming he wished to continue to participate in the scheme.
1/ Brightman v TIAA Ltd - EAT holds ET erred in considering medical evidence about B's condition post-dismissal when assessing the fairness of a capability dismissal & whether there'd been a failure to make reasonable adjustments. #ukemplaw
2/ B was an auditor with brittle asthma, a blood clotting problem & a slipped disc. These caused B to be absent from work. The absences grew in length & regularity. She was referred to OH & examined by a doctor who didn't have supplementary notes she'd provided.
3/ As a result, B didn't permit the release of the Dr's report until he'd seen her notes. This took about 4 months - the notes didn't change the Dr's opinion. The report said she was fit for work but would continue to require sickness absences of like magnitude to the last year.
1/ Brown v Veolia - EAT held ET perverse in finding a conduct dismissal fair given its recognition of the extensive ineptitude in the process. The ET also erred in discounting those flaws when considering an uplift to a wrongful dismissal award. #ukemplawbailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT…
2/ B, a business development officer, was dismissed for misconduct against a subordinate via a disciplinary process the ET described as 'a catalogue of ineptitude and misjudgement', in spite of which the ET found the dismissal just about fair!
3/ The ET criticised pretty much every aspect of the process, including the process chosen, the suspension, the investigation meeting invite, failing to give B statements, the manner of questioning, the lack of follow-up, & refusing an adjournment for B to contact witnesses.
1/ There's not been a decent one-off or continuing act case for a while, but Moore Stephens LLP v Parr provides much of the relevant case law all in one convenient place.
2/ P was an equity partner at MS, an accountancy firm. There was a provision in the LLP members' agreement for a normal retirement age of 60 but with MS having discretion to extend beyond on terms decided by the managing partner.
3/ When P reached 60, MS decided he could continue another 2 years but only as a non-equity partner. This was agreed. A few months later, P learned of subsequent proposals to sell MS & then learned that as a non-equity partner he'd not receive a share in the proceeds of sale.
1/ Polyclear Ltd v Wezowicz: in considering strike out for failure to comply with an unless order, the ET should consider what attempts were made to comply & the extent of failure in material compliance when weighing the interests of justice.
2/ In this unfair dismissal/race discrimination claim, 1 issue was whether Polish workers at the respondent plastic manufacturer were required to work on machine which required harder work than those allocated to Indian workers.
3/ At a PH, the EJ ordered disclosure of job sheets by way of cross-reference to a written request from the claimants, which appeared to ask for 30 job sheets for two sets of machines, all for the same date.