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.

Poor Contract Drafting Leaves the Door Wide Open to Employment Disputes

Inept and non-professional drafting of contracts is an open invitation to employment disputes. That was certainly so in a case where a property manager’s contract left substantial room for doubt as to whether he was employed or self-employed. The man was, under the terms of a written contract, for many years engaged by a company to provide site management services in relation to two blocks of flats. He lodged Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings against the company but, in order to succeed in…

Locum Consultant Not Entitled to Permanent Contract

Under Regulation 8 of the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, employees who have worked continuously for four years or more under a series of fixed-term contracts automatically become permanent employees unless the renewal of their employment on a fixed-term contract was objectively justified. Recently, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether such justification applied in the case of a locum consultant. The consultant was employed by…

Disability Discrimination – Diabetic Cake Shop Worker Compensated

Discrimination against disabled employees is a social evil with which Employment Tribunals (ETs) will have no truck. In one case, a cake shop worker who was dismissed because of her diabetes was awarded thousands of pounds in compensation. The woman’s condition meant that, without daily insulin injections, she would suffer a hypoglycaemic episode and fall into a coma. At the date of her dismissal, she was in stage B renal failure. In sacking her by text, her manager expressed the view that she…