It has been announced that Langstaff J will succeed Mr Justice Underhill (as reported on the Lawyer website) as President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) from 1 January 2012. We round up some of Langstaff J's important and interesting judgments in the EAT.
Note: Subscription required to access the individual XpertHR reports.
Garside and Laycock Ltd v Booth EAT/0003/11 The EAT grappled with a common issue for employers: when a dismissal for refusal to take a pay cut is fair. The EAT held that, when considering whether or not a dismissal for refusing to take a pay cut was fair for "some other substantial reason", the employment tribunal should look at the reasonableness of the employer's decision to dismiss, not whether or not the employee was reasonable in refusing the reduction in wages.
Full judgment on the BAILII website
Conteh v Parking Partners Ltd EAT/0288/10 The EAT held that the employment tribunal was correct to reject a claim of race discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976 against an employer that failed to take action to prevent third-party harassment. The Equality Act 2010 changed the law on third-party harassment on 1 October 2010.
Full judgment on the BAILII website
Johnson v Rollerworld EAT/0237/10 The EAT held that compelling evidence is needed to justify reducing compensation for unfair dismissal on the ground that the employment would have ended at some stage in the future. Where the tribunal finds that the employment would have come to an end through dismissal, compensation can be reduced to reflect that fact only if the dismissal would have been fair.
Full judgment on the BAILII website
HM Land Registry v Grant [2010] IRLR 583 EAT A rare appellate decision from the EAT on sexual orientation discrimination. The EAT said that an employment tribunal that held that an employee had been discriminated against on the ground of sexual orientation had failed properly to take into account, among other facts, that the employee had actively "come out" while working at a different office. The Court of Appeal later upheld the EAT decision.
Full judgment on the BAILII website
BP plc v Elstone and another [2010] IRLR 558 EAT The EAT held that a worker can be protected against suffering a detriment for whistleblowing by his or her current employer when the protected disclosure was made to a previous employer. The case provides useful clarification that a detriment suffered because of a disclosure a claimant made while employed by a previous employer can be covered by whistleblowing legislation, as long as the action taken is linked to the protected disclosure at issue.
Full judgment on the BAILII website
Galaxy Showers Ltd v Wilson [2006] IRLR 83 EAT The EAT held that, where a grievance was contained in and consisted of a letter of resignation, it satisfied the requirements of step one of the statutory grievance procedure. There was a run of decisions on what constituted a "grievance" under the statutory grievance procedure, an issue that was typical of the problems with the dispute resolution procedures that led to their demise.
Full judgment on the BAILII website
Caspersz v Ministry of Defence EAT/0599/05 The EAT held that an employer that introduced and implemented an effective dignity at work policy successfully defended sexual harassment claims even where the harasser was the manager with responsibility for implementing the policy.
Full judgment on the BAILII website
Blundell v Governing Body of St Andrew's Roman Catholic Primary School and another [2007] IRLR 652 EAT The EAT held that a teacher returning to work following maternity leave was not entitled to return to the same class that she had been teaching when her maternity leave began. This is the first appellate decision on the meaning of the "same" job for maternity leave purposes.
Full judgment on the BAILII website
Ekpe v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2001] IRLR 605 EAT The EAT overruled an employment tribunal that rejected a claim that a woman was disabled, even though she could not put rollers in her hair and could not always use her right hand to apply make-up, on grounds that neither was a "normal day-to-day activity" because they are activities carried out almost exclusively by women.
Full judgment on the BAILII website
Fuller v Mastercare Service & Distribution EAT/0707/00 The EAT upheld the employment tribunal decision that a man with a ponytail did not suffer sex discrimination through his employer's more restrictive policy on grooming for men than women. The tribunal ruled that the employer's dress code did not have a less favourable impact on men.
Full judgment on the BAILII website
Leave a comment