|
FL Memo Ltd © 2007 |
|
Employment Memo 2007 Newsletter Issue 1 |
|
PDF printer friendly version |
|
RECENT CASES |
|
Statutory grievance procedures Raising a grievance under modified procedure See EM: ¶¶6765, 6745 City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Pratt [2007] IRLR 192, EAT Where an employee raises a grievance under the standard statutory grievance procedure (at Step 1 of 3), he is required to set out in writing the grievance and send the statement (or a copy of it) to his employer. Where, however, a former employee raises a grievance under the modified statutory grievance procedure (at Step 1 of 2, see ¶6745), he is required to send a written statement setting out both the grievance and the basis for it. These are separate requirements and both must be met individually. In this case, the EAT considered a former employee seeking to bring an equal pay claim who in her letter of grievance to her employer had identified her grievance (equal pay) but not its basis (her comparator). The EAT ruled that the requirements of the modified grievance procedure had not been met.. Trade unions and industrial action Trade unions: obligation to members 1. Example of where workers were not unjustifiably disciplined See EM: ¶7146 Beaumount v Amicus [2006] EAT case 0219/06; new reference [2007] ICR 341, EAT Members of trade unions are protected against unjustifiable disciplinary action by unions. Relevant disciplinary action includes expulsion, fines, refusal to accept contributions, suspension and depriving members of benefits. It does not include a letter that merely threatens action. In this case, an application was unsuccessful with a claim where the disciplinary action was a letter before action, and where there was no immediate demand nor power behind the request. 2. Level of compensation for right not be unjustifiably disciplined See EM: ¶¶7147, 5751 Massey v Amicus [2006] EAT case 0223/04 Where a union member M had been unjustifiably disciplined by a union, she successfully sought damages. M was barred from holding union office, and suffered a series of injuries as a result, including a stroke. The EAT held that in deciding which damages could be claimed, and how compensation should be calculated, the correct model to follow was victimisation in compensation in sex or race discrimination cases. M was able to for claim injury to feelings, personal injury and aggravated damages. Her total compensation was set at £17,000. |