In Vaseghi and others v. Brunel University and others [2006], the staff made up of separate complaints of race discrimination, and claimed against her employer. Settlement discussions began before the first series of court hearings in 2004, but no settlement has been reached was.
After the first hearings of the employer a quarterly newsletter, pointed out that spending a large amount of money for the defense of employment claims. He has particular reference to two court hearings, the cost of more than £ 60,000. He also criticized the workers and the union for the pursuit of unsubstantiated allegations and unwarranted demands for money. The two employees filed complaints in response to the newsletter. They alleged the following:
* The employer had the attempts at settlement;
* The employer had the prospect of financial compensation and
* The newsletter had amounted to victimization.
The Complaint Committee oral evidence of the discussions between the parties in their efforts to reach a settlement, but it was decided that the grounds for the complaint was not proven. The employees then began new tribunal procedures.
At the hearings of the new employer to the admissibility of evidence on the complaint before the Committee by the staff. The employer argued that the evidence concerning the settlement discussions were "without prejudice" privilege. The court concluded in favor of the employer, and found that the evidence would be inadmissible. It should be noted, however, that the court also noted that the references to the discussions in the grievance committee's report would be admissible. If it is not the case, for the employees would be affected. The employer appealed, and the employees cross-appealed.
The employer argued that the references to the discussions in the grievance committee's report should have benefited from the "without prejudice" privilege. They argued that the privilege was of more importance than the application of the law in relation to the achievement of the case of workers under severe prejudice.
The employees argue that they should have the opportunity to use the references to the discussions in the grievance committee's report, because that was the only evidence of what happened in the settlement discussions to support their claims of victims. They claimed that the allegations of unwarranted demands for money were not supported, resulting in the settlement discussions. Therefore, they argued that they have been able to agree on the settlement talks, although technically under the "without prejudice" privilege, because there was an overriding public interest in eliminating the scourge of victimization. If they are not on the evidence they would not be able to develop their arguments for victimization.
The court found that the employee entitlements would be greatly hampered, they were not permitted to rely on the settlement talks as evidence against the allegations that it is not unwarranted demands for money. The employer, through the publication of the newsletter had the matter in public, and subsequently could not be limited to the "without prejudice" privilege. To prevent employees on the evidence for their victimization claims would have a clear abuse of a privileged occasion. The elimination of discrimination and victimization was considered more important than protecting the "without prejudice" privilege. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed and the cross appeal is admissible.
© RT Coopers, 2006. This background information is not a comprehensive or complete statement of the law on the issues can not be considered legal advice. It is only on general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to the particular circumstances.
Media Law & employment law firm advising media and entertainment industry films, TV, Television, Music lawyers, attorneys Media, Entertainment Lawyers Media Contract, Employment solicitors, employment law, employment lawyers, employment law firm, Redundancies, Unfair dismissals, BREACH OF CONTRACT, disputes in the workplace, TUPE Transfers, Drafting Employment Contracts, complaint procedures, disciplinary procedures, maternity rights, discrimination, Employment Disputes, suspensions, wrongful dismissal, Equal Pay, Media Copyright.
0 ความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น