| |
News |
| |
Get the latest news and employment updates |
|
Claimant 8 seconds too late in
submitting Tribunal Application -
6th December 2007
Time limits
are of paramount importance when it comes to making
employment claims, and the following case effectively
highlights this fact.
In the
case of Miller v Community Links Trust UKEAT/0486/07/05,
a second-year law student hit the 'transmit' button on
the Employment Tribunals website at 1 second before
midnight on the last day for presentation of an ET1
claim form. It arrived on the Employment Tribunals
server at 8 seconds past midnight and this resulted in
the application being received nine seconds out of time
and thus the claim could not be proceeded with. The EAT
(HHJ McMullen presiding) confirmed the claim was out of
time.
This is
a stark reminder that the deadline for employment claims
is not flexible.
|
| |
|
|
Victimisation – the House of Lords
In
St Helens Borough
Council v Derbyshire the House of Lords
held that forceful and intimidating letters sent by an
employer to a group of employees claiming Equal Pay
could amount to victimisation.
The House of Lords held that the employer, who had
written deeply unpleasant letters to 39 equal pay
Claimants - pointing out that they might be
responsible for the loss of their colleagues' jobs if
they won their equal pay claims - had subjected those
Claimants to a detriment on the grounds they had
brought a tribunal claim.
Whilst acknowledging that the employer was entitled to
take legitimate steps to try to settle claims, the
House of Lords stated that the employment tribunal was
entitled to find that Derbyshire Borough Council had
crossed the line, and actively subjected the Claimants
to a detriment. |
| |
|
|
High Court Challenge to Age
Discrimination Regulations
A High Court challenge has been
issued by Heyday (an organisation closely associated
with Age Concern) to challenge the validity of the
Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006. Heyday have
issued an application for judicial review of the
regulations.
Heyday argue that
the regulations permit forced retirement at 65 and that
this is incompatible with the EU Equal Treatment
Framework Directive. The application is due to be heard
on 6 December 2006. |
| |
|
|
|
Equal Pay - The Ruling in
Cadman
On 3
October 2006 the Europe Court of Justice gave its long
awaited judgment in the case of Cadman v Health &
Safety Executive.
The ECJ's decision is
highly significant in that they held that it is not
necessary for an employer to provide objective
justification for pay disparities which arise as a result
of 'length of service' criteria. The main points to arise
out of the judgement are that:
-
"since,
as a general rule, recourse to the criterion of length
of service is appropriate to attain the legitimate
objective of rewarding experience acquired which enables
the worker to perform his duties better, the employer
does not have to establish specifically that recourse to
that criterion is appropriate to attain that objective
as regards a particular job, unless the worker provides
evidence capable of raising serious doubts in that
regard"
-
"where a job
classification system based on an evaluation of the work
to be carried out is used in determining pay, there is
no need to show that an individual worker has acquired
experience during the relevant period which has enabled
him to perform his duties better."
In October
2006 the case will go back to the Court of Appeal to
decide whether the arguments made by Mrs Cadman amount to
“serious doubts” as to whether it was "appropriate" for
the HSE to use of length of service in setting pay levels
designed "to attain the legitimate objective of rewarding
experience acquired which enables the worker to perform
his duties better". |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This site is
managed by employment law solicitors,
regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority of England & Wales.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
More employment unfair dismissal solicitor site links
unfair dismissal compensations - employment law helpline - constructive dismissal - sexual harassment - race discrimination claims - disclaimer |
| |
|
