Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The former job description carried some management responsibility but Mr Burrell had not in practice performed them. Mr Burrell did not apply for the new post and got redundancy. He then claimed unfair dismissal. The Tribunal held the employers had not demonstrated Mr Burrell was redundant, because the new job involved the same work as before.
The dismissal selection was unfair, ‘the correct approach is to consider whether an industrial tribunal, properly directed in law and properly appreciating what is currently regarded as fair industrial practice, could have reached the decision reached by the majority of this tribunal. We have reached the conclusion that it could not.’
The Court of Appeal applied a "contract test" to the question of redundancy: whether an employee was redundant was to be determined by reference to the terms (explicit or implied) in their employment contract. This, along with the "function test" was subsequently rejected by the House of Lords in Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd. [3
Likewise, in some jurisdictions, the state or prosecution may appeal an issue of law "by leave" from the trial court or the appellate court. The ability of the prosecution to appeal a decision in favor of a defendant varies significantly internationally. [3] All parties must present grounds to appeal, or it will not be heard.
An Industrial Tribunal (IT, now known as an Employment Tribunal) held that there was a substantial reason justifying dismissal, and by a majority the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld this decision. However, the Court of Appeal disagreed, stating that in deciding whether Burns had acted reasonably, the tribunal needed to consider whether an ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
In the collective agreements between Rolls-Royce and Unite, each year of service gave employees an extra point against selection for redundancy.Rolls-Royce, challenging the collective agreement that it had itself agreed to, asked the court whether this was compatible with the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.
Andersen appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. [2] Andersen petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, which was granted. [3] The issue was whether the jury had been properly communicated the law which Andersen was charged with violating.