All posts tagged Employment Tribunals

Abbey Santander Group Demonstrates Appeal Stages And Court Structure In Employment Disputes

By blogger on

The appeal stages and court structure in employment disputes in the UK is demonstrated by the high-profile Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006) legal case, where the Employment Tribunal found race discrimination and made the record breaking 2.8 million compensation award. Abbey National Santander Abbey (the UK high street bank soon to be re-branded as Santander share, and being part of the Banco Santander Group) ended Balbinder Chagger’s employment in 2006, giving redundancy as the reason. However, Mr Chagger believed the real reason behind his dismissal was race discrimination. Mr Chagger (of Indian origin) was employed as a Trading Risk Controller. He earned around 100,000 a year and reported into Nigel Hopkins, his manager.

If an employee has suffered unfairness and/or discrimination in employment then he could decide to appeal. The first point of appeal may be to the employer, in the form of a formal grievance. The employee lodges the formal grievance with the employer. The employer is responsible for hearing the grievance and deciding its outcome. The employer is, thus, given the opportunity to deal with the employment dispute and to close it satisfactorily. However, Mr Chagger’s issues were simply dismissed out of hand by the Banco Santander Group company.

If the parties cannot resolve their employment dispute between themselves, then either party may appeal to an Employment Tribunal for an independent resolution of the dispute. Employment Tribunals will hear disputes concerning unfair dismissal, redundancy payments and discrimination. Mr Chagger eventually appealed to the Employment Tribunal by starting legal proceedings against both Santander Abbey National and Mr Hopkins on the grounds of race discrimination and unfair dismissal. The Employment Tribunal heard the case and concluded that Mr Chagger had been both dismissed unfairly and discriminated against on the grounds of race in respect of his dismissal, by both Mr Hopkins and Santander Abbey National. The Employment Tribunal took the rare step of ordering Abbey Santander to reinstate Mr Chagger in order to remedy the wrong of race discrimination it had committed. Santander Abbey National, however, refused to comply with the Employment Tribunal’s reinstatement order. Following Santander Abbey National’s failure to comply, the Employment Tribunal subsequently ordered Abbey Santander to pay Mr Chagger the record breaking 2.8 million compensation for his loss on the basis that he had not been reinstated.

The employee/employer that is dissatisfied with the Employment Tribunal’s decisions may appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The EAT will consider appeals against decisions made by Employment Tribunals. The grounds of appeal must be points of law (i.e., the appeal must be about errors in the legal reasoning of the Employment Tribunal’s decision). The EAT will not reconsider issues of fact. Santander Abbey National and Mr Hopkins appealed to the EAT against the Employment Tribunal’s decision of race discrimination and against the award of 2.8 million compensation. The EAT heard Abbey Santander’s appeals. It decided to uphold the original Employment Tribunal’s finding that Mr Hopkins and Santander Abbey National had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in respect of his dismissal. However, it accepted Abbey Santander’s appeal on the record breaking 2.8 million compensation award and remitted the compensation matter to the original Employment Tribunal for reconsideration on the basis of the likelihood of Mr Chagger leaving Santander Abbey National’s employment in any case.

The party that is dissatisfied with the EAT’s decisions may appeal to the Court of Appeal, being the second highest court in the land. The Court of Appeal will consider appeals against decisions made by the EAT. Once again, the grounds of the appeal must be points of law (i.e., the appeal must be about errors in the legal reasoning of the EAT’s decision). The Court of Appeal will not reconsider issues of fact either. The Santander Abbey National case was appealed to the Court of Appeal; the Court of Appeal’s website showed the case was heard this month, on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court of Appeal’s records concerning the hearing were not available at the time of writing this article. According to 11KBW set of chambers, the hearing was limited to the issue of compensation only (i.e., not to the matter of race discrimination also). That would suggest that the wrong of race discrimination committed by Santander Abbey National and Mr Hopkins seems to have been finalised by the EAT, which upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s finding that Mr Hopkins and Abbey Santander had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in his dismissal.

The party that is dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal’s decisions may appeal to the House of Lords, being the highest court in the land. Any appeal to the House of Lords requires the Court of Appeal’s approval and the Court of Appeal must also certify a question of general public importance that the House of Lords needs to decide upon. Again, appeals to the House of Lords must be about points of law and not about issues of fact. The House of Lords is the final stage of appeal for most legal cases in the UK. However, rare cases may be permitted for appeal to the European Court of Justice, which has jurisdiction on matters of European Community law.

Abbey Santander Illustrates Unfair Dismissal Remedy (reinstatement)

By blogger on

Reinstatement, being the re-employment of the employee back into the role he was unfairly dismissed from (as though the dismissal had never occurred), is one possible remedy in the UK for unfair dismissal. In the high-profile case Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006), the Employment Tribunal found that Mr Chagger had been unfairly dismissed, and that both Santander Abbey National (the Spanish-owned UK bank due to be re-branded as Santander, and being part of the Banco Santander Group) and Mr Hopkins had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in respect of his dismissal. The Employment Tribunal took the rare step of ordering Abbey Santander to reinstate Mr Chagger in order to remedy its wrongdoing. Santander Abbey National, however, refused to comply with the Employment Tribunal’s reinstatement order. Following Abbey Santander’s refusal and failure to comply with the reinstatement order, the Employment Tribunal subsequently ordered Abbey Santander to pay Mr Chagger the record breaking 2.8 million compensation for his loss on the basis that he had not been reinstated. Santander Abbey National had terminated Balbinder Chagger’s employment in 2006, giving redundancy as the reason. He was employed as a Trading Risk Controller, earned about 100,000 per year, reported into Nigel Hopkins and was of Indian origin.

UK law views reinstatement of the unfairly dismissed employee as the primary remedy for unfair dismissal; reinstatement of the employee permits him to continue to enjoy the economic benefits of the role in the future and also restores the mental satisfaction that he enjoyed from his role. If reinstatement of the employee is not practicable, UK law then usually views reengagement as the next best remedy. Reengagement is re-employment of the employee into a different role to the one he was unfairly dismissed from (on terms and conditions as close as is reasonably practicable to those he was unfairly dismissed from).

After an Employment Tribunal makes a finding of unfair dismissal, it must ask the unfairly dismissed employee whether or not he wishes to be reinstated or reengaged. If the employee wishes to be reinstated or reengaged, then the Employment Tribunal has complete discretion as to whether or not to issue a reinstatement order or reengagement order. The Employment Tribunal will consider whether it is practicable for the unfairly dismissed employee to return to work for the employer and, where the unfairly dismissed employee was partly to blame for the dismissal, whether or not it would be just and equitable to issue such a reinstatement order or reengagement order.

Although they are the primary remedies, Employment Tribunals rarely ever order reinstatement or reengagement though. That’s because the reality of the process of litigation is that its vexatious nature often leaves the relationship between the employer and the unfairly dismissed employee beyond repair such that it is no longer possible for them to work together anymore; only in rare cases do Employment Tribunals decide that the relationship remains workable.

When an Employment Tribunal orders reinstatement or reengagement, then it is open for the employer to refuse to re-employ the unfairly dismissed employee. Unless the employer satisfies the Employment Tribunal that it was not practicable to comply with the reinstatement order or reengagement order, then the employer’s refusal to comply with the Tribunal’s wishes will give rise to increased compensation for the unfairly dismissed employee. If the Tribunal is dissatisfied with the employer’s reasons for refusing to comply with its wishes, then the employer will have failed to comply with what the law views as the best solution to rectify the wrong committed; then the Employment Tribunal will proceed to consider and award compensation as the next best remedy to address the employer’s wrongdoing.

Requesting reinstatement and/or reengagement may prove to be tactically useful for an unfairly dismissed employee because the employer’s failure to comply entitles him to be compensated in full for all his loss of earnings from the date of the unfair dismissal to the date of the reinstatement/reengagement order; the statutory limit (or cap) on the compensation amount does not apply. So, if the unfairly dismissed employee’s losses to the date of the hearing exceed the statutory limit, then reinstatement/reengagement should be seriously considered. Furthermore, employers generally dislike re-employing an unfairly dismissed employee so much that a credible application for re-employment could lead to higher offers of settlement from the employer. If the employer complies with the order of reinstatement/reengagement, then the employee will be expected to comply too.

The Chagger case did not end at the Employment Tribunal stage, however. The case was subsequently escalated to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), and recently had escalated to the second highest court in UK, the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal’s website showed the case was heard on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court of Appeal’s records of the case were not available at the time of writing this article. However, the King’s Bench Walk set of barristers’ chambers reported (through their website) that the hearing was limited to the issue of compensation only (not race discrimination also). That suggests that the wrong of race discrimination committed by Santander Abbey National and Mr Hopkins seemed to have been finalised by the EAT, which upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s judgement that Mr Hopkins and Abbey Santander had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in his dismissal.

Working method of Employment Tribunal

By blogger on

In this period of employment crisis many employers removes the employees from job without any reason by creating some reasons for removing them from job. Employment tribunals are how disputes between employers and workers take place after other attempts to resolve a conflict have failed. The courts are usually a last resort to resolve issues between employers and workers. It is important to know how courts work and the entire procedures.

Employment Tribunal process in general is given below:

Employment Tribunals are made up of a committee of three, a judge and two lay complete with extensive experience in labor disputes. There is no charge for the use of a court, but it will still be the cost of attorneys’ fees of each party. The cases have not been claimed against more than three months from the date of the incident happened will not take into consideration unless there is any kind of unforeseen circumstances. Once a decision has been made is legally binding and both parties must respect this decision.

There are a variety of different topics that can be taken before the Labor Court. The most common complaints are as follows:

Redundancy Equality issues Discrimination Dismissal without prior notice or reason Breach of contract Disciplinary procedures Maternity or paternity

Alternative Dispute Resolution

If a dispute is always a mutual interest in ensuring that you are trying to resolve the situation before the court. There are many types of alternative dispute resolution that can spread very fast. It is always helpful to consider the following methods before resorting to an employment tribunal:

1.ACAS Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration is the main methods of pre-complaint conciliation. They will try to solve the problems between the employer and employee before going to court. They will give advice and suggests possible methods to solve the issue by discussion or any other means without going to court. If the matter was settled through ACAS, then both employer and employee must sign a legally binding agreement for avoiding further problems in future. If the agreement is violated by both sides, then the other party has the right to sue for breach of contract. This agreement is good option to avoid minor issues after the settlement. 2.Other effective method of dispute resolution is a compromise, and this is a legally binding solution, to provide compensation or a reference to the dissatisfied party. Compensation will be usually made by the withdrawal of the claim by one party. You must inform Employment Tribunal in writing, and the second party involved in the dispute, if you accept a compromise. Here one party has to accept the terms of other party and have to come in mutual understanding to avoid future problems. This will work out in few cases only because it is not that much easy that one party will agree with the terms and conditions of the other easily. Issues relating to employment tribunal must always be resolved with the help of a lawyer specializing in employment.

Employment Tribunals hope you will appreciate the practical advice within this guide on employment tribunal rules. We believe that the specialist experience we provide allows any claimant or respondent to have the benefit of effective representation throughout the employment tribunal procedure and rules.

Grievance Letter And Court Structure Illustrated By Emilio Botin Grupo Santander Banking

By blogger on

UK employment disputes grievances and court structure is illustrated by the high-profile Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006) legal case, where the Tribunal made a finding of racial discrimination which led to the record 2.8 million compensation award. Abbey Santander banking group (the UK retail bank due to be re-branded as Santander price, and being part of the gigantic Emilio Botin Banco Santander Central Hispano Group, BSCH) terminated Balbinder Chagger’s employment in 2006, asserting compulsory redundancy as the reason. Mr Chagger, on the other hand, believed the true reason behind his dismissal was racial discrimination. Mr Chagger was of Indian origin and worked as a Trading Risk Controller for Santander 2009. He earned about 100,000 per annum and reported into Nigel Hopkins.

An employee who has suffered employment related unfairness and/or discrimination could decide to make an appeal. The initial place of appeal would be to the employer, in the form of a formal grievance. The employee lodges a formal grievance letter with the employer, and the employer is responsible for processing the grievance and deciding the outcome. Thus, the employer is given the first the opportunity to handle the employment dispute and to close it satisfactorily. Mr Chagger’s grievances and issues, however, were simply dismissed out of hand by Emilio Botin Abbey Santander share price.

If the employee and the employer are unable to resolve their employment dispute by themselves, then the employee may appeal to an Employment Tribunal for an objective resolution. UK Employment Tribunals will hear matters about redundancy payments, unfair dismissal and discrimination. Mr Chagger took his matter to the Employment Tribunal by initiating legal action against both Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins, on the grounds of unfair dismissal and racial discrimination. The Employment Tribunal considered the evidence and ruled that Mr Chagger had in fact been both dismissed unfairly and racially discriminated against by both Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins. In order to remedy the wrong of race discrimination Santander Abbey had committed, the Employment Tribunal ordered the company to reinstate Mr Chagger. However, Santander Abbey refused to comply with the Employment Tribunal’s reinstatement order. The Employment Tribunal then ordered Abbey Santander to pay Mr Chagger 2.8 million compensation for his loss, as an alternative to reinstatement.

The party that is dissatisfied with the Employment Tribunal’s ruling may appeal to the next higher-level court, being the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The EAT will look into appeals against rulings made by the Employment Tribunals. The appeals must only be about points of law (i.e., an appeal must only be about mistakes in legal reasoning by the Employment Tribunal). The EAT will not look into matters about facts of the case. In 2008, Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins appealed to the EAT against the Employment Tribunal’s ruling of racial discrimination and against the record-breaking 2.8 million compensation awarded. The EAT considered the appeals. It upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s ruling that Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger in respect of his dismissal. However, it accepted Santander Abbey’s appeal concerning the 2.8 million compensation award and decided to send back the compensation amount to the original Employment Tribunal for reconsideration.

The party that is dissatisfied with the ruling of the EAT may make an appeal to the next higher-level court, the Court of Appeal (the second highest court in the land). The Court of Appeal will look into appeals against rulings made by the EAT. As before, the appeals must only be about points of law (i.e., an appeal must only be about mistakes in legal reasoning by the EAT). The Court of Appeal will not look into matters about facts of the case. In 2009, the Chagger v Santander Abbey case was appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal’s List of Hearings showed that the case was heard on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court of Appeal’s records concerning the outcome of the hearing were not available at the time of writing this article. The 11KBW set of barristers’ chambers (who represented Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins), had reported that the hearing was to be only about quantum (i.e., compensation) and not liability also (i.e., not racial discrimination also). That would appear to suggest that the wrong of race discrimination committed by Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins was finalised by the EAT (it upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s finding that Mr Hopkins and Santander Abbey had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger), and that Mr Chagger had appealed against the EAT’s ruling to send back the compensation amount back to the Employment Tribunal stage for reconsideration.

The party that is dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court of Appeal may appeal to the next higher-level court, the House of Lords. Appeals to the House of Lords require the Court of Appeal’s approval. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal must require the House of Lords to decide upon a question of general public importance. As previously, appeals to the House of Lords must only concern points of law and not be about facts of the case. The House of Lords is the highest court in the land and the final stage of appeal for most legal cases in the UK. Occasionally, cases may be approved for appeal to the European Court of Justice, which has jurisdiction on matters of European Community law.

An Employment Solicitors Guide To Constructive Dismissal

By blogger on

Constructive dismissal is a frequently misunderstood term – but if your employer behaves in a way that means that you feel you have to leave your job, you might be able to claim constructive dismissal.

Constructive dismissal takes place when an employee terminates their employment because the employer’s conduct is such as to make it unbearable for the employee to continue in their employment. This behaviour must be so serious that it can be classed as a breach of contract i.e. behaviour that gives the employee the belief that their employment contract has been terminated.

Constructive dismissal need not relate to one particular event, it can also apply to a string of events. Constructive dismissal claims relate to the employer’s breach of express of implied terms of your employment contract. This could include the advertisement for your job, something laid out in the staff handbook or the terms and conditions written in your contract. It can include breach of implied terms, like an employer’s duty of care towards its employees or duty to act reasonably.

You could claim constructive dismissal if your employer has reduced your wages, amended your job description or your hours and place of work, or ignored a request to improve bad working conditions.

Examples of a severe breach of an implied term amounting to constructive dismissal would include; an employer making it impossible for you to do your job effectively, not giving you the support required to carry out your work without interference or harassment from colleagues, or wrongly accusing you of theft with no evidence to support the accusation.

In order to claim constructive dismissal you must have had one year’s continuous employment. If you have less than one year’s continuous employment, you could still claim constructive dismissal if you are able establish that your employment was terminated for an automatically unfair reason.

You should raise a formal grievance if you are unhappy with how your employer is treating you. Clarify exactly what is making you unhappy. Following the ACAS Code of Practice, your employer should then arrange a formal meeting, without unreasonable delay, to discuss the grievance. Being helpful and reasonable during negotiations with your employer might help resolve the problem. Employment Tribunals are frequently more sympathetic toward employees who have attempted to settle or mediate problems before going to a tribunal.

Experienced employment solicitors appreciate that those employees who find themselves in a situation where they are likely to make a claim for constructive dismissal, are often suffering from anxiety, stress or even depression. You should seek medical advice if you think you may be suffering from any of these conditions andbe sure to let your employer know the reasons for your absence.

Time limits for an Employment Tribunal

You must leave within a reasonable time of the breach – do not delay. You then have a strict 3 month period from the date you left to file an employment tribunal claim. An Employment Tribunal may interpret your delay as having accepted the changes in your contract – the main point about constructive dismissal is that the situation has become such that it is simply impossible to continue your employment.

Although feeling that you have no alternative than to resign, and subsequently doing so, may constitute constructive dismissal you should take legal advice on your individual situation before handing in your notice unless your conditions are entirely intolerable, in which case seek legal advice immediately thereafter. Employment law is complex and it is always important to get specific legal advice from an experienced employment solicitor on employment law problems and constructive dismissal cases in particular.