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.

Badly Treated by Your Employer During the Pandemic? See a Solicitor Today

Hospitality businesses endured a torrid time during COVID-19 lockdowns, but the majority did their best to treat staff fairly. As an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, however, those that did not can expect to reap a bitter harvest. The case concerned a man with mental health difficulties who had been praised and promoted for his work as a pub chef. After the pandemic struck and the pub had to close, he was placed on furlough. Whilst at home, he was in close contact with his father, who…

School Inspector Sacked for Touching Pupil Succeeds in Unfair Dismissal Claim

It is obviously impractical for employers to have in place disciplinary policies that set out each and every form of frowned-upon conduct. However, as an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling showed, employees are generally entitled to some forewarning of the types of behaviour that may result in immediate dismissal. The case involved a school inspector who, during an inspection visit, encountered a group of pupils who had come in soaking from the rain. He brushed water from the hair or…

Proving a Link Between Unfair Treatment and Discrimination Can Be Tough

It may be relatively straightforward to prove you have suffered unfair treatment at work, but establishing that such treatment results from discrimination can pose a far greater challenge. This was certainly so in an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case concerning a forklift truck driver. The man launched proceedings following two fractious confrontations between him and colleagues in the car park of the premises where he worked for a logistics company. He alleged that he was falsely and…