1 / 14

KEY EMPLOYMENT & DISCRIMINATION CASES 2010

KEY EMPLOYMENT & DISCRIMINATION CASES 2010. Alison Collins 9 th February 2011. (1) Veitch –v- Red Sky Group Ltd. Jason Veitch – successful in claim of unfair dismissal claim Appeal from Industrial Tribunal decision Disability Discrimination – reasonable adjustments and victimisation

lei
Download Presentation

KEY EMPLOYMENT & DISCRIMINATION CASES 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. KEY EMPLOYMENT & DISCRIMINATION CASES 2010 Alison Collins 9th February 2011

  2. (1) Veitch –v- Red Sky Group Ltd • Jason Veitch – successful in claim of unfair dismissal claim • Appeal from Industrial Tribunal decision • Disability Discrimination – reasonable adjustments and victimisation • Observations of Girvan LJ on the length of the proceedings. 9th February 2011 - Employment & Discrimination Cases 2011

  3. Veitch –v- Red Sky Group Ltd • Case – remitted for re-determination by a fresh Tribunal. • Respondent – expressed concern at the length of proceedings – 16 days at Tribunal. • LJ Girvan – overriding objections at Tribunal Reg 3 (Industrial Tribunals (Constitutional Rules of Procedure) Regulations (NI) 2005. 9th February 2011 - Employment & Discrimination Cases 2011

  4. Veitch –v- Red Sky Group Ltd • Recommended: “Unnecessary protracted oral evidence could usefully avoided by requiring a party to ensure that the evidence in chief of witnesses should be provided in the first instance in a written statement with the witness then being available for cross examination only”. 9th February 2011 - Employment & Discrimination Cases 2011

  5. Veitch –v- Red Sky Group Ltd • Tribunals – Case Management Discussions • Day 1 – Parties do not attend Tribunal. • Day 1 – Panel members read witness statements • Day 2 – Cross examination of witnesses commences. 9th February 2011 - Employment & Discrimination Cases 2011

  6. (2) Andrew Locke -v- Candy & Candy Ltd • Claimant – dismissed ten days before he acquired one year’s service. • Paid 6 months in lieu of notice as per contract. • Entitlement to bonus: £160,000 if remained employed for 12 months. • Raised a claim for non-payment of bonus. 9th February 2011 - Employment & Discrimination Cases 2011

  7. Andrew Locke -v- Candy & Candy Ltd • Sum claimed beyond financial limit of Tribunal. • Claimant pursued his claim in the High Court • Unsuccessful. • Appealed to Court of Appeal. 9th February 2011 - Employment & Discrimination Cases 2011

  8. Andrew Locke -v- Candy & Candy Ltd • Court of Appeal held contract had to be held “holistically” • Bonus clause and its restrictions had to be applied when calculating the payment. • COA held – not entitled to payment of bonus of £160,000. 9th February 2011 - Employment & Discrimination Cases 2011

  9. (3) Kraft Foods UK Ltd v Hastie [2010] EqLR 18 EAT • Contractual voluntary redundancy scheme • Cap on awards that could be made. • Prevented employees recovering more than they would have earned if they had remained in employment until retirement age • Claimant – reduced his amount by £14,000 9th February 2011 - Employment & Discrimination Cases 2011

  10. Kraft Foods UK Ltd v Hastie • Tribunal held cap disproportionately applied to those approaching retiring age. • Unjustifiable and unlawful discrimination contrary to the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 • Case appealed to EAT 9th February 2011 - Employment & Discrimination Cases 2011

  11. Kraft Foods UK Ltd v Hastie • EAT: Disagreed with the Tribunal’s decision. • Held: Proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim to impose a cap preventing the "windfall" of an employee recovering more than he could have recovered had he stayed in employment until retirement. • Compensate employees for loss of the expectation of remaining in employment. 9th February 2011 - Employment & Discrimination Cases 2011

  12. Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2010] • Case on indirect discrimination. • Requirement introduced: To be in the top grade for legal adviser an employee had to obtain a law degree. • Claimant: 30 years’ service. • Police Officer – Legal Adviser. 9th February 2011 - Employment & Discrimination Cases 2011

  13. Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2010] • Claimant advised that his employer would pay for him to do a law degree. • Claimant met all other criteria for the role. • Court of Appeal held: requirement did not cause any particular disadvantage for employees between 60 and 65 without law degrees even though close to retirement. 9th February 2011 - Employment & Discrimination Cases 2011

  14. Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2010] • Whatever the employee’s age was when the provision, criterion or practice was introduced, he would have failed to achieve the top grade until he obtained the degree. 9th February 2011 - Employment & Discrimination Cases 2011

More Related