-
expand
Nonyelu v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and another ET/2201754/08
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
Noone v North West Thames Regional Health Authority [1988] IRLR 195 CA
(2 reports relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 1 January 1989
In Noone v North West Thames Regional Health Authority (No 2) (15.7.88) EOR23D, the Court of Appeal holds that an industrial tribunal, which found that the complainant had been unlawfully discriminated against for a vacancy as a consultant, erred in recommending that the employers should seek authorisation to dispense with their statutory obligation to advertise their next vacancy for a consultant.
-
- Date:
- 1 July 1988
In Noone v North West Thames Regional Health Authority (17.3.88) EOR20E, the Court of Appeal holds that where there is a finding that a black candidate for a post has not been selected despite superior qualifications and the employer fails to provide a satisfactory explanation, usually a legitimate inference will be that the discrimination was on racial grounds.
-
expand
Noor v Telewest Communications (South East) Ltd [2000] ET/2305006/98
(1 report relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 1 September 2000
In Noor v Telewest Communications (South East) Ltd a London South employment tribunal (Chair: M E Stacey) holds that a female sales representative, the only woman in a sales force of around 70 employees, was subjected to a number of incidents of sexual harassment over a 12-month period, including the posting of female pin-ups in her office and the making of sexist comments about her by a manager in front of her colleagues.
-
expand
Norbrook Laboratories (GB) Ltd v Shaw EAT/0150/13
(2 reports relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 30 June 2014
In Norbrook Laboratories (GB) Ltd v Shaw EAT/0150/13, the EAT held that a worker had made a protected disclosure within the meaning of s.43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, by warning of the danger of sales representatives being required to drive in heavy snow. This was a disclosure of information tending to show a risk to health and safety and went beyond a mere assertion or expression of opinion. The fact that the disclosure was made through three separate emails to two different people did not alter the fact that a protected disclosure had been made.
-
- Date:
- 3 February 2014
The Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed with an employment tribunal that emails sent by the claimant taken together were capable of amounting to qualifying disclosures, even though the emails were sent to different individuals in different departments.
-
expand
Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v Smyth 30 September 1986 HC
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
Norcup v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2002] ET/2502934/01
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
Norman and another v National Audit Office [2015] IRLR 634 EAT
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
Norris v Lambert (t/a Black Bull Inn)
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
Nortey v Comet Group plc [2007] ET/2303484/2006
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
North and others v Dumfries and Galloway Council [2011] IRLR 239 CS
(2 reports relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 1 June 2011
In North and others v Dumfries and Galloway Council [2011] IRLR 239 CS, the Court of Session held that the EAT's "real possibility" test incorrectly placed an additional hurdle on claimants and amounted to an error of law. However, the claimants' argument that they were in the same employment as their comparators failed on the evidence.
-
- Date:
- 18 January 2011
The Court of Session has said that the Employment Appeal Tribunal incorrectly placed an extra hurdle in equal pay claims when it said that, for a claimant to rely on a comparator employed at a different establishment, there must be a "real possibility" of the comparator doing the same, or a broadly similar, job at the claimant's place of work.