• Current Issue
• What's New?
• Topics
  • Age
  • Compensation
  • Disability
  • Equality & diversity
  • Equal pay
  • Flexible working
  • Harassment
  • Parental rights
  • Policy and practice
  • Race
  • Religion or belief
  • Sex
  • Sexual orientation
  • Tribunal procedures
  • Other
• Case Reports
• Discrimination Guide
• Legislation Guides
• Codes of Practice
• Key Cases 2010
• Michael Rubenstein Publishing
• Access Keys

Tribunal procedures

This topic contains all articles and case reports dealing with Tribunal Procedures. They are shown in reverse chronological order, with the most recently published being listed first.

You can further narrow down the articles or case reports you want to see by choosing one or more types of article, or case report, and/or selecting the date of publication, using the boxes on the right-hand side of your screen.

Showing results from 1 to 20 of 152

According to the EAT in May v Greenwich Council (15 Apr 2010), an employment tribunal should not refuse to accept a claim form on grounds that some of the details are illegible.

In what is believed to be the first case to address the requirements of a compromise agreement under the amended s.77 of the Sex Discrimination Act, an employment tribunal holds that the claimants had entered into a valid agreement that excluded the jurisdiction of the tribunal in relation to claims that related to the period covered by the agreement. McWilliam and others v Glasgow City Council (ET S/132316/07 and others, 12 May 2010)

The Government Equalities Office has launched a consultation on a new streamlined procedure for obtaining information prior to making a discrimination claim to a tribunal.

Figures released by Acas show that increasing numbers of employers and workers are using its free conciliation service to avoid employment tribunal hearings.

Judicial mediation does not have a statistically significant effect on the settlement or resolution of discrimination cases, nor the satisfaction levels of claimants or employers, according to an evaluation report from the Ministry of Justice of a pilot run between June 2006 and March 2007.

An employment tribunal erred in refusing to extend time where a claim form alleging victimisation on grounds of race was lodged four hours and 16 minutes out of time by the claimant’s representative. Benjamin-Cole v Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children NHS Trust (5 Jan 2010, EAT)

A claimant who delayed submitting her race discrimination claim could not establish that it was just and equitable to extend the time limit. Although she had received conflicting advice, her advisor was not legally qualified or experienced in bringing cases and the claimant had found the correct information herself on the internet. Johnson v (1) Ark-Burlington Danes Academy (2) Coates (22 Jun 2009, ET/3300180/09)

Although in this case the delay in submitting a race and age discrimination claim was only 12 days, and therefore the prejudice to the respondent in terms of defending the case not great, the tribunal concluded that as there was no clear reason given for the delay and the claimant’s case was weak, it would not be just and equitable to extend the time limit. Kansal v Kirklees College (11 Jun 2009, ET/1800893/09)

The EAT has emphasised that the three-month time limit for bringing a discrimination claim should only be extended in exceptional circumstances.

The EAT correctly ordered disclosure to a discrimination claimant of confidential documents that suggested that the employers had treated Canadian-connected staff in London differently from those employees who did not have such a connection. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Beck (26 Jun 2009; Court of Appeal)

The Employment Tribunal Service Steering Board (ETSSB), which acts as an adviser to the CEO of the tribunals service and Acas, has been commissioned by Government ministers to investigate concerns about consistency in decision-making in employment tribunals.

The Employment Act 2008 comes into force on 6 April 2009, and with it, the repeal of the statutory grievance procedure takes effect. This means that there will no longer be a requirement for employees to comply with the statutory grievance procedure before being allowed to bring a discrimination or equal pay claim. Michael Rubenstein explains.

Disagreeing with earlier decisions, the President of the EAT has held that in order to satisfy the first step in the statutory grievance procedure, a written equal pay grievance does not need to state any more than that the claim is a claim under the Equal Pay Act. Suffolk Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust v Hurst; Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust v Kaur; Arnold v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (6 Nov 2008, EAT)

Lord Wedderburn's classic analysis, The worker and the Law (1965), encapsulated the "abstentionist" tradition in mid 20th century British employment law. The point being made was that workers achieved their gains through collective strength and did not want the law to erode their collective bargaining power.

In an important test case, the Court of Session has ruled that in order to comply with the requirements of the statutory grievance procedure in an equal pay case, the grievance and the subsequent tribunal claim form need only be “essentially the same”. Cannop v Highland Council (11 Jun 2008, Court of Session)

Regulation 9 of the Dispute (Resolution) Regulations 2004 deals with collective grievances. Alitalia Airport SpA v Akrif (17 Mar 2008; UKEAT/0546/07/RN)

The plan to make all employment tribunal judgments available free of charge on the internet has been delayed, according to a House of Commons reply by Bridget Prentice, parliamentary under-secretary of state for justice.

Well-connected sources now tell me that the date for publication of the Government’s response to the consultation on the Discrimination Law Review has been pushed back to “the spring”, ie anywhere from 21 March to 21 June. There has been no change yet in the plan to introduce the Single Equality Bill in November, but I understand that the response to the consultation, when it is eventually published, will now set out in fairly firm form what the Bill will look like.

Monthly diary column by Equal Opportunity Review's publisher, Michael Rubenstein.

This article is an expanded version of the sections relating to discrimination and equal opportunities issues of a lecture by Michael Rubenstein on 'Key employment and discrimination cases for 2008', given to the Industrial Law Society on 29 January 2008 in London, 5 February in Newcastle upon Tyne, 6 February in Leeds, and 7 February in Manchester.