CASES ON SEXUAL HARRASSMENT
Porcelli v strathcylde 1984: On hearing a sex discrimination complaint
the tribunal should ask themselves first was there any sexual harassment,
and secondly, was it to the detriment of the applicant.
The Council employed three laboratory technicians who were all female
and included P, the applicant, at one of their schools. Two of the
technicians left and were replaced by two male technicians. P alleged that
they conducted a campaign of harassment including sexual harassment
against her with a view to forcing her to apply for a transfer from the
school. The campaign suceeded and P was transferred at her request to
another school. P complained that the Council had committed unlawful
acts of discrimination against her. The tribunal held that the Council were
responsible for the actions of the male technicians and that P had been
subjected to sexual harassment.
Bracebridge Engineering ltd v Darby 1989 WLUK 278: D resigned
following a failure by the office manager to take action upon her
allegation of sexual assault by two colleagues. She claimed that she had
been constructively dismissed and unlawfully discriminated against on
grounds of sex. The tribunal upheld her complaints. The employers
appealed, claiming, inter alia, that a single act could not properly be
described as sexual harassment.
Institu cleaning co ltd v heads 1995 IRLR :
Driskel v D appealed against a finding that she had not been
discriminated against on the ground of her sex. D alleged that her head of
department had sexually harassed her on several occasions. It was held
that the tribunal had erred in dismissing D's claim since (1) with the
exception of one incident, D's evidence had been preferred; (2) it had
taken a fragmented approach to the incidents complained of, and (3) the
most serious incident involved clear discrimination
EXAM GUIDANCE ; First question is an unfair dismissal question,
potentially fair reason, case law procedures and remedies
PART B; Revise redundancy, procedural farness, and redundancy
payments
Statutory rights
Discrimination, focus on sex discrimination and disability, types of
discrimination and types and case laws
Focus on trade union collective bargaining
CASES ON UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Can this be considered as a dismissal?
Futty v d and d brekkers ltd : A fish filleter on the Hull Dock in B's
employ was told by his foreman to "if you do not like the job, f***
off." B took this as a dismissal and found other employment
Kendrick v aerluct products 1974 1WL: Kendrick's brother, X, was
dismissed from his job after telling him to "f*** off and play with
your shop". When K returned an hour later for his cards and money
X said "You can have the fucking things now if you want them".
Held, that although X may have intended to dismiss K, a reasonable
man would have interpreted X's words as a dismissal.
, Failure to renew a fixed term contract:
Terry v East Sussex County Council [1977] 1 All E.R. 567 : The
Court of Appeal has held that a temporary job may constitute a
reason for dismissal if a fixed term contract is not renewed. In
this case, an employee was employed for a one-year fixed term
which was not renewed and the employer contended that the
temporary nature of the engagement constituted a "substantial
reason" for dismissal.
In cases of unfiair dismissal, there are 5 potentially fair reasons for
dismissal which under them are conduct, capability, redundancy,
illegality and some other substantial reasons.
Capability: Under imherent ability , In this is caused by an effect of
metal or physical breakdown of the employee which has affected his
job. Employers can provide investigation, supervision:
Davidosn v kent metres 1975 IRLR 145: An employee was
dismissed by her boss because she failed to assemble 500
components in the righ order. The employment tribunal having
held this as an unfair dismissal as he was supposed to show her
how thw work was to be done.
In taylor v Alidair ltd 1978 ICR 445: an employee who was
dismissed prior to being negligent in performed her aeronautics
duties. It was conformed that she failed to do this in the correct
standard.
The employer can provide alternatives : In Bevan Harris Ltd v
Gair 1983 SLT 487, The tribunal had applied the wrong test in
deciding that it would have been reasonable to demote G rather
than dismiss him.
CONDUCT: In dismissing an employee, employer should
investigate to see the root cayse of the misconduct
In HSBC Bank v Madden/Foley v Post Office [2001] 1 ALL ER 550:
PO and H, employers of F and M respectively, appealed against
Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) decisions upholding
complaints of unfair dismissal. PO and H contended that the EAT
had erred in its approach to the issue of the reasonableness or
unreasonableness of an employee's dismissal. In the case of F,
the EAT had been wrong to reverse the decision of a tribunal
which found that the PPO acted reasonably in treating his
conduct as a reason for dismissal.
In the case of F, the EAT had been wrong to reverse the decision
of a tribunal which found that the PPO acted reasonably in
treating his conduct as a reason for dismissal.
Scottish Special Housing Association v Cooke [1979] 1WLUK 96 :
CASE LAWS UNDER CONDUCT
Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
and Botham v Ministry of Defence 2011 UKSC 58: x-surgeon
David Edwards has been awarded damages by the Court of
Appeal in respect of loss of reputation arising from his
dismissal. He claimed that the dealing with his dismissal was
Porcelli v strathcylde 1984: On hearing a sex discrimination complaint
the tribunal should ask themselves first was there any sexual harassment,
and secondly, was it to the detriment of the applicant.
The Council employed three laboratory technicians who were all female
and included P, the applicant, at one of their schools. Two of the
technicians left and were replaced by two male technicians. P alleged that
they conducted a campaign of harassment including sexual harassment
against her with a view to forcing her to apply for a transfer from the
school. The campaign suceeded and P was transferred at her request to
another school. P complained that the Council had committed unlawful
acts of discrimination against her. The tribunal held that the Council were
responsible for the actions of the male technicians and that P had been
subjected to sexual harassment.
Bracebridge Engineering ltd v Darby 1989 WLUK 278: D resigned
following a failure by the office manager to take action upon her
allegation of sexual assault by two colleagues. She claimed that she had
been constructively dismissed and unlawfully discriminated against on
grounds of sex. The tribunal upheld her complaints. The employers
appealed, claiming, inter alia, that a single act could not properly be
described as sexual harassment.
Institu cleaning co ltd v heads 1995 IRLR :
Driskel v D appealed against a finding that she had not been
discriminated against on the ground of her sex. D alleged that her head of
department had sexually harassed her on several occasions. It was held
that the tribunal had erred in dismissing D's claim since (1) with the
exception of one incident, D's evidence had been preferred; (2) it had
taken a fragmented approach to the incidents complained of, and (3) the
most serious incident involved clear discrimination
EXAM GUIDANCE ; First question is an unfair dismissal question,
potentially fair reason, case law procedures and remedies
PART B; Revise redundancy, procedural farness, and redundancy
payments
Statutory rights
Discrimination, focus on sex discrimination and disability, types of
discrimination and types and case laws
Focus on trade union collective bargaining
CASES ON UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Can this be considered as a dismissal?
Futty v d and d brekkers ltd : A fish filleter on the Hull Dock in B's
employ was told by his foreman to "if you do not like the job, f***
off." B took this as a dismissal and found other employment
Kendrick v aerluct products 1974 1WL: Kendrick's brother, X, was
dismissed from his job after telling him to "f*** off and play with
your shop". When K returned an hour later for his cards and money
X said "You can have the fucking things now if you want them".
Held, that although X may have intended to dismiss K, a reasonable
man would have interpreted X's words as a dismissal.
, Failure to renew a fixed term contract:
Terry v East Sussex County Council [1977] 1 All E.R. 567 : The
Court of Appeal has held that a temporary job may constitute a
reason for dismissal if a fixed term contract is not renewed. In
this case, an employee was employed for a one-year fixed term
which was not renewed and the employer contended that the
temporary nature of the engagement constituted a "substantial
reason" for dismissal.
In cases of unfiair dismissal, there are 5 potentially fair reasons for
dismissal which under them are conduct, capability, redundancy,
illegality and some other substantial reasons.
Capability: Under imherent ability , In this is caused by an effect of
metal or physical breakdown of the employee which has affected his
job. Employers can provide investigation, supervision:
Davidosn v kent metres 1975 IRLR 145: An employee was
dismissed by her boss because she failed to assemble 500
components in the righ order. The employment tribunal having
held this as an unfair dismissal as he was supposed to show her
how thw work was to be done.
In taylor v Alidair ltd 1978 ICR 445: an employee who was
dismissed prior to being negligent in performed her aeronautics
duties. It was conformed that she failed to do this in the correct
standard.
The employer can provide alternatives : In Bevan Harris Ltd v
Gair 1983 SLT 487, The tribunal had applied the wrong test in
deciding that it would have been reasonable to demote G rather
than dismiss him.
CONDUCT: In dismissing an employee, employer should
investigate to see the root cayse of the misconduct
In HSBC Bank v Madden/Foley v Post Office [2001] 1 ALL ER 550:
PO and H, employers of F and M respectively, appealed against
Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) decisions upholding
complaints of unfair dismissal. PO and H contended that the EAT
had erred in its approach to the issue of the reasonableness or
unreasonableness of an employee's dismissal. In the case of F,
the EAT had been wrong to reverse the decision of a tribunal
which found that the PPO acted reasonably in treating his
conduct as a reason for dismissal.
In the case of F, the EAT had been wrong to reverse the decision
of a tribunal which found that the PPO acted reasonably in
treating his conduct as a reason for dismissal.
Scottish Special Housing Association v Cooke [1979] 1WLUK 96 :
CASE LAWS UNDER CONDUCT
Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
and Botham v Ministry of Defence 2011 UKSC 58: x-surgeon
David Edwards has been awarded damages by the Court of
Appeal in respect of loss of reputation arising from his
dismissal. He claimed that the dealing with his dismissal was
