Definition from the XpertHR glossary.
Tori O'Neil, Tessa Harland, Sarah Wade and Ed Gregory are associates at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.
Joanne Magill, associate, and Claire Benson and Ceri Hughes, managing associates, at Addleshaw Goddard detail the latest rulings.
Rebekah Martin, Carly Mather, Kate Edminson and James Buckley, all associates at Addleshaw Goddard, detail the latest rulings.
Practical guidance on responding to an employment tribunal claim, including the 28-day time limit for submitting the ET3; grounds for resisting the claim; pleading in the alternative; and counterclaims.
In R v Secretary of the Central Office of the Employment Tribunals, ex parte Public Concern at Work, the High Court concludes that the particulars of an originating application (IT1) that the Secretary is generally required to enter in the public register must include: the applicant's and the respondent's names; the date the application was made and received; the relief sought; and a summary of each of the grounds of the claim sufficient to enable a member of the public exercising the right of inspection to identify the gist of those grounds.
This is the first of two articles rounding up recent case law on employment tribunal and EAT practice and procedure.
In Dodd v British Telecom plc (12.3.87) EOR17B, the EAT rules that a discrimination complaint is "presented", so as to stop the time limit from running, when it is received by the industrial tribunal and that in order to be a valid complaint the originating application need only be in writing, contain sufficient to identify who is making it and against whom it is made, and contain sufficient to show what sort of complaint.
In Dennehy v Sealink UK Ltd (21.11.86) EOR12B, the EAT rules that an originating application does not have to disclose a prima facie case that a complainant is employed on work of equal value with her comparator.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to employment tribunal forms.