Employment Judge Embarked on ‘Frolic of his Own’ – EAT Ruling

Employment judges may reconsider their initial conclusions on a case, but that does not give them licence to embark on a wholesale change of mind on the basis of arguments that have not been presented to them. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made that point in finding that an employment…

May 03, 2023

Pexels nataliya vaitkevich 6863262 1024x683

Employment judges may reconsider their initial conclusions on a case, but that does not give them licence to embark on a wholesale change of mind on the basis of arguments that have not been presented to them. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made that point in finding that an employment judge went on a frolic of his own.

The case concerned a senior employee of a global company who was seconded on a short-term basis to run its operations in Canada. After his commission payments – which in the past had represented the majority of his remuneration – were stopped, he resigned and launched Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings.

Following a hearing, the ET found that his contractual entitlement to commission had expired 12 months into his secondment. Any commission payments he received thereafter were at the company’s discretion. There had been no fundamental breach of his employment contract and the employment judge rejected his complaints of constructive unfair and wrongful dismissal.

After subsequently reconsidering the matter at the employee’s behest, however, the judge reversed that outcome and upheld both complaints. He found that the company had breached the term of trust and confidence implied into the employee’s contract by the manner in which it withdrew his commission payments.

In upholding the company’s challenge to the ET’s decision, the EAT found that the judge had engaged in a frolic of his own in effectively rewriting several paragraphs of his original judgment. At the reconsideration hearing, neither side had presented argument on the point that the judge treated as decisive.

Given the public interest in the finality of litigation, the EAT found that he should not even have embarked on the process of reconsideration. In doing so, he granted the employee a second bite of the cherry, thereby causing serious prejudice to the company. The ET’s original decision dismissing the complaints was restored.

Cooling Off Periods and Retraction of Oral Resignations – Guideline Ruling

Large employers often have ‘cooling off’ policies in place which address the common situation of employees orally announcing their resignation in a stressful moment and subsequently having second thoughts. As an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, however, such polices, once adopted, must be honoured. The case concerned a supermarket worker who was under strain at home due to her onerous caring responsibilities for sick and elderly relatives. During an understaffed night shift, she became…

Healthcare Support Agency Overturns Direct Race Discrimination Finding

A finding of race discrimination is always an extremely serious matter and that is why a rigorous approach to evidence and proof is required of Employment Tribunals (ETs). In one case, a healthcare support agency accused of subjecting a black worker to less favourable treatment succeeded in showing that that high standard was not met. The worker claimed that the agency failed to respond as it should have done after he twice complained that he had been racially abused by members of another…

Dismissal for Misconduct Without a Reasonable Investigation is Rarely Fair

Dismissing an employee for misconduct is very unlikely to be viewed as fair if there has been no proper investigation and no consideration of either mitigation or the possibility of a lesser sanction. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in the case of a veteran music teacher who was sacked for refusing to attend a staff meeting. The teacher, who had worked at the relevant school for 24 years, was told by her boss that attendance at the meeting was not optional. When she informed him…