Cases within T

• expand

  The British Waterways Board (t/a Scottish Canals) v Smith EAT/0004/15 (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Unfair dismissal: Dismissal for Facebook comments was fair

    Date:

    2 January 2016

    In The British Waterways Board (t/a Scottish Canals) v Smith EAT/0004/15, the EAT allowed an appeal against a tribunal's finding that the dismissal of an employee for posting offensive Facebook comments about colleagues and about drinking while on standby was unfair. The tribunal had substituted its own view of the seriousness of the conduct for that of the employer.

  • Unfair dismissal: no special rules apply to Facebook misconduct cases

    Date:

    7 August 2015

    In the first Scottish appellate decision on Facebook misconduct, the EAT has held that ordinary principles of law apply. The EAT held that the employment tribunal had erred in law and substituted its own views for those of the employer.

• expand

  The County Council of Avon v Howlett [1983] IRLR 171 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Contracts of employment: Overpayment of wages

    Date:

    22 February 1983

    Where an employer has mistakenly overpaid an employee, the money can be recovered if it was paid because of a mistake of fact. However in a warning to employers operating computerised payment systems, the Court of Appeal in The County Council of Avon v Howlett holds that the defence of estoppel may operate to prevent recovery of all the money even if the employee has spent only some of it.

• expand

  The Financial Times Ltd v Byrne and others (No.2) [1992] IRLR 163 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Allocating proof under s.1(3)

    Date:

    1 May 1992

    In The Financial Times Ltd v Byrne and others (No.2) (29 January 1992) EOR43A, the EAT holds that s.1(3) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 requires the employer to prove not only that a variation in pay between a woman and a man employed on work of equal value is genuinely due to a material factor but requires the employer also to prove that this is not due to the difference of sex.

• expand

  The Home Office v Holmes [1984] IRLR 299 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Discrimination: Ban on part-timers unjustified

    Date:

    7 August 1984

    In The Home Office v Holmes, the EAT holds that a ban on part-time work can amount to unlawful sex discrimination.

• expand

  The Home Office v Saunders EAT/0260/05 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Sex discrimination: Requiring woman to search male inmates discriminatory

    Date:

    20 January 2006

    In Home Office v Saunders, the EAT holds that, in a direct sex discrimination claim under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the employment tribunal did not err in finding that the correct hypothetical comparator for a female prison officer conducting a search on a male prisoner was a male prison officer conducting a search on a female prisoner.

• expand

  The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Malley [1999] OPLR 167 HC (1 report relating to this case)

  • In court 1999

    Date:

    1 January 2000

    Our 10th annual round-up of court and tribunal cases concerning pensions and retirement issues encompasses 38 judgments. Last year saw some important decisions, but fewer cases overall than in recent years.

• expand

  The Manchester College v Hazel and another [2013] IRLR 563 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case round-up

    Date:

    1 July 2013

    David Malamatenios is a partner, and Colin Makin, Krishna Santra, Sandra Martins and Melissa Powys-Rodrigues are solicitors at Colman Coyle Solicitors. They round up the latest rulings.

• expand

  The Manchester College v Hazel and another [2014] IRLR 392 CA (2 reports relating to this case)

  • TUPE: Refusal to accept pay cut post transfer was not ETO reason

    Date:

    1 April 2014

    In The Manchester College v Hazel and another [2014] IRLR 392 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the employees were not dismissed for a potentially fair ETO reason when their contracts were terminated post transfer and replaced with new contracts on significantly less favourable terms. The fact that the "harmonisation" process was part of a wider restructure that involved making other employees redundant at around the same time was irrelevant. What mattered was the immediate and operative reason for dismissing the particular employees in question, who were not themselves at risk of redundancy.

  • TUPE: harmonisation after redundancy process not an ETO reason entailing changes in the workforce

    Date:

    20 February 2014

    The Court of Appeal has agreed that a transferee did not have an economic, technical or organisational (ETO) defence over the dismissal of two claimants as a result of harmonisation following a post-TUPE transfer redundancy process.

• expand

  The Manchester College v Hazel and another EAT/0642/11 & EAT/0136/12 (3 reports relating to this case)

  • TUPE: Post-transfer harmonisation dismissal did not entail "changes in the workforce"

    Date:

    6 February 2013

    In The Manchester College v Hazel and another EAT/0642/11 & EAT/0136/12, the EAT upheld a ruling by the employment tribunal that dismissals as a result of post-TUPE-transfer harmonisation were automatically unfair because they did not constitute an ETO reason "entailing changes in the workforce".

  • Case round-up

    Date:

    1 November 2012

    Carly Mather, Lydia Newman and Amy Ross-Sercombe are associates and Amanda Steadman is a professional support lawyer at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.

  • TUPE: Harmonisation after a redundancy process did not constitute an ETO reason entailing changes in the workforce

    Date:

    13 September 2012

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the tribunal was correct to find that the respondent did not have an economic, technical or organisational (ETO) defence in respect of the two claimants, who were dismissed as a result of harmonisation following a post-TUPE transfer redundancy process. 

• expand

  The Ottoman Bank v Chakarian [1930] AC 277 JCPC (1 report relating to this case)

  • The Ottoman Bank v Chakarian

    Date:

    31 December 1930

    In The Ottoman Bank v Chakarian [1930] AC 277 JCPC, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that an employee can refuse to transfer to a geographical area where the employee would be at personal risk.