In October 2006, the case of Letherbarrow v Kindergarten UK Ltd [2006] came before the Employment Tribunal. A worker and his wife had two managing directors and co-owner of the employer company. The staff of women, the majority of the shares, although she was an employee as well.
The staff of the marriage with his wife together. He was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct on 10 September 2005. A number of questions relating to his conduct complained that the majority of the materials that the allegation that he had on 7 September, the sum of £ 600 from the employer without the consent sure. He appealed against his dismissal but was not successful. The employee began proceedings with the Tribunal on the grounds that he had wrongly and unfairly dismissed.
In a hearing before the review, the Tribunal Struckmann the staff of the two claims on the grounds that they have no reasonable prospect of success. From the answers to the court by the employee, the court that he, in fact, the £ 600, an act that is clearly in the amount of coarse, and that therefore his dismissal was the appropriate selection of the responses provided by the employer . The employee appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal ( "eat").
The employee argued that the court wrongly granted to the employer the reasons for his dismissal, since the Employees their authenticity was challenged. He had made it clear that the allegations that his dismissal was related to the breakdown of his marriage. In such cases the court should have a different procedure.
The appeal was allowed. The EAT decided: --
* That the court has not heard evidence from the parties before making its decision.
* Because the staff had the allegations about irregularities in the proceedings by the employer, the case was not suitable for summary trial by the court.
* The court should have considered that, although lower than the sum of £ 600 from the safe could be amounted to roughly the employee may not require permission to do so, he was Director of the employer company.
* In addition, the Court failed to provide a fair procedure for the dismissal.
Under the above circumstances, the Tribunal erred in deleting the employee is entitled. The EAT ruled that the hearing before the court for a new revision.
© 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. Please contact us for advice on employment law at enquiries@rtcoopers.com or visit http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_employment.php
0 ความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น