An employment tribunal may decide on the proportionality of a discriminatory act even when agreed by the employer with a union

Pulham & Ors v. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham [2009] UKEAT 0516_08_2810

www.workrep.co.uk

    Helping You     About     Links     Contact     Site Info     HOME

05/11/2009


  • An employment tribunal may decide on the proportionality of a discriminatory act even when agreed by the employer with a union
  • Regarding a failure in eliminating discrimnation employers may not rely on a defense that a specially allocated budget to this end has been exhausted.
  • tribunals must be given sufficient information regarding the impact of a particular act of discrimination against a claimant
  • Sufficient information needs to be provided as to the affordability of costs in relation to the relevant financial background

  


The transcript of this case follows:-   Pulham & Ors v. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham [2009] UKEAT 0516_08_2810

Some recent employment cases:-
2009
Autoklenz 'Subcontractors' were employees - the contractual substitution clause was just 'window dressing' - Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 1046
Contract was ultra vires but employee still able to pursue unfair dimsissal claim under ERA 96 - Shrewsbury & Telford Hospital NHS Trust v Lairikyengbam [2009] UKEAT 0499_08_2108
Redundancies - ECJ rules that consultations do not need to begin until the parent company decides which subsidiary will be affected - Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK ry and Others v Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy - ECJ [2009] Case C-44/08
ECJ rules holiday entitlement must not be lost through illness - Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA - ECJ [2009] C-277/08
Costs follow lies (breaching confidentiality in a compromise agreement) - Dunedin Housing Association Ltd v. Donaldson - UKEAT [2009] 0014_09_0807
Pre-contractual negotiations can not be used as evidence for the meaning of a contract - Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd & Ors [2009] UKHL 38
Failure to fully exhaust statutory dispute resolution procedures means a claimant is barred from seeking redress in the courts - Booth v Oldham MBC [2009] EWCA Civ 880
Employers can not hide behind 'substantial equivalence' arguments to justify post TUPE contract changes - TAPERE v SOUTH LONDON AND MAUDSLEY NHS TRUST - [2009] UKEAT 0410_08_1908
The EAT rejects the refusing of the sole candidate for a job by citing conflict of interest and health and safety arguments - Amnesty International v Ahmed - [2009] UKEAT 0447_08_1308

Downloading, publishing, forwarding or any distribution etc of this or any other WorkRep article is subject to license. Workers (excluding HR, reps or consultants etc) researching their own tribunal cases may download for their own use up to 30 pages of WorkRep material free.

Do you have a problem at work? Are you being discriminated against harassed or victimised at work or have you been unfairly dismissed or wrongfully dismissed? If you are suffering from bullying victimisation or discrimination at work you need to contact WorkRep early on. Whatever your employment problem is, even if you have failed in your tribunal case and there is now a costs application against you we will try to help. click for further information about problems at work

Disclaimer: articles and information published by WorkRep.co.uk are for general information purposes only.  Please read the site info before using this website  © 2009 Workrep