Tag: 爱上海PXD

tchojqig

Case round up

first_imgThis week’s case round-upComparisons for equal pay Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust v Reynolds, EAT, 2003, All ER (D), 10 Sep The Aintree Trust took over the work and workforce of a health authority.The authority’s employees were paid at rates fixed under a collective agreementand these rates continued after their employment transferred to the AintreeTrust. Following the transfer, the trust recruited new employees directly,including Mr Reynolds, on different contractual terms and pay rates to thetransferred staff. Reynolds claimed for equal pay and sex discrimination. In deciding hisclaim, the tribunal compared Reynolds both to the staff transferred from thehealth authority and to those recruited directly by the trust. The tribunalfound in his favour on the basis that the Aintree Trust could not show therewas a reason for the inequality in pay other than sex. The tribunal’s decision was overturned by the Employment Appeal Tribunal(EAT). It ruled that the tribunal had been wrong to compare Reynolds’ contractterms both to the transferred staff and to those recruited directly by thetrust. A comparison should have been made only with the directly recruitedemployees. The EAT found that men and women were treated the same in bothgroups and, as such, there had been no sex discrimination. Redundancy selection — remember to act reasonably O’Hare v Drake International Systems Ltd, EAT, 2003, All ER (D), 12 Sep Mr O’Hare was employed by Drake International as a plant operative. Adownturn in business prompted Drake to carry out a selection exercise to effectseven compulsory redundancies. The manager responsible for carrying out the redundancy exercise adoptedthree selection criteria: absences per period of employment (given the lowestweighting), length of absences per period of employment and disciplinarysanctions per period of employment (given the highest weighting). The application of these selection criteria resulted in O’Hare beingselected for redundancy. He appealed on the basis that his absences were due toindustrial injury and should have been excluded but despite his appeal, he wasdismissed. O’Hare’s dismissal was held to be unfair. The tribunal found that thecriteria applied were not unreasonable, but held that the manner of assessmentagainst the criteria was unreasonable – in particular, the rejection ofO’Hare’s suggestion that absences related to industrial injury should beignored. The tribunal’s decision was overturned by the EAT. The tribunal had wronglyimposed its own view of the reasonableness and implementation of the criteria.The correct question for consideration was whether the selection was one that areasonable employer, acting reasonably, could have made. Related posts:No related photos. Comments are closed. Case round upOn 23 Sep 2003 in Personnel Today Previous Article Next Articlelast_img read more

CONTINUE READING