Employment Appeal Tribunal cases last week – 05.08.2013 to 11.08.2013
Judgment in four cases in the Employment Appeal Tribunal was handed down between 5 August 2013 and 11 August 2013, including the following:
- Ross v Eddie Stobart Limited [2013] UKEAT 0068_13_0808 (automatic unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, reason for dismissal) – The Claimant appealed against the Employment Tribunal’s conclusion that his dismissal was for conduct (and not because he had blown the whistle) on the basis that the decision was perverse and that the Employment Tribunal had failed to apply the burden of proof test relating to the reason for his dismissal properly. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the basis that the decision was not perverse and that the Employment Tribunal had not applied the wrong test.
- Visteon Engineering Services Ltd v Oliphant & Ors [2013] UKEAT 0010_13_0708 (redundancy, redundancy pay, contract, implied terms) – Visteon appealed against the Employment Tribunal’s decision that the terms of a collective agreement applied indefinitely and not just for a six year period. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal for the reason that there was no basis for applying a limitation of six years
- Andrew v Cledor Ltd & Anor [2013] UKEAT 0111_13_0608 (discrimination, ET1, amendment of claim) – The Employment Tribunal refused the Claimant permission to amend her ET1 to include more than one claim for discrimination. The Claimant appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that there was in fact one claim for discrimination/harassment contained in the ET1 and that the Employment Judge’s decision to refuse leave to amend for any claim but that was to be upheld.
- R & M Gaskarth v Mooney & Anor [2013] UKEAT 0196_12_0508 (unfair dismissal, compensation, causation) – the Respondent appealed against the Employment Tribunal’s findings relating to compensation in the Claimants’ unfair dismissal case on the basis that the wife’s depression had not been caused by the unfair dismissal and the Claimants had been awarded sums by the way of double recovery. The Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected the appeal.