COURT OF APPEAL
Disability discrimination
Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall [2008] EWCA Civ 4
When deciding whether someone is disabled as the effect of their impairment "is likely to recur" in paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 1 to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 the Tribunal must only look at the evidence available at the time of the decision complained of and not subsequent events.
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Statutory grievance procedure
The Highland Council v TGWU/Unison UKEATS/0020/07/MT
Some of the Claimants included a comparator in relation to equal pay claims in their ET1 which they did not put in their grievance letters. The EAT held that a grievance letter must contain reference to a specific comparator. If another or additional comparator is identified before the ET1 is issued then another grievance letter must be sent. If another comparator is chosen afterwards, then s32(2) Employment Act 2002 does not apply and an application to amend must be made. Alternatively a new grievance and a new ET1 could be issued.
Time limits
Ashcroft v Haberdashers Askes Boys School UKEAT/0151/07/CEA
Regulation 15 of the Employment Act 2002 Dispute Resolution Regulations 2004 effectively repealed Palmer & Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] IRLR 11 in that it is not reasonably practicable within the meaning of s111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 for a Claimant to submit an ET1 for unfair dismissal while an internal appeal is still ongoing.
Termination of contract
Tom Findlay & Co Ltd v Devlin UKEATS/0071/06/MT
The EAT held that there was no dismissal by the Respondent where the Claimant had given 12 weeks notice of termination but the Respondent had replaced her early and did not require her to come into work but paid her until the end of the notice period.
Protective award
Hutchins v Permacell Finesse Ltd (in administration) UKEAT/0350/07/CEA
When considering the protective award under s188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for a grave failure by the Respondent in administration to comply with the regime relating to proposed redundancies, the Tribunal started at 30 days. It should have applied Susie Radin Limited v GMB & Ors [2004] ICR 893and started at 90 days.
Author: Catherine O'Donnell
