Employment Appeals Tribunal

An appeal is possible from an industrial tribunal decision, but only on a matter of law. In respect of enforcement notices it is to the High Court in England and to the Court of Session in Scotland. In respect of other matters it is to the Employment Appeal Tribunal except in N. Ireland. 

The Employment Appeal Tribunal is a superior court associated with the High Court. It sits with a judge and 2 lay members, and all have equal voice. Parties may be represented by any person they wish, and legal aid is available. Further appeal is to the Court of Appeal (in Scotland to the Inner House of the Court of Session). In N. Ireland there is no Employment Appeal Tribunal. An Industrial Tribunal s decision may be challenged by review by the Tribunal itself, by judicial review by the High Court, or by way of case stated to the Court of Appeal. 

In the last case, the substantial reasons could be the fact that the company was failing and a re-organisation, involving a reduction in the number of staff, was necessary for survival. For dismissal under these circumstances to be fair, the following criteria outlined by an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) need to be satisfied ... 

Where an employee considers he has been dismissed unfairly he is given a right to make a complaint (ss. 67,68,69) to an industrial tribunal, who can, if the complaint is found to have substance, decide on a prescribed remedy (re-instatement, re-engagement or compensation) to suit the case, a remedy to which the employer is bound. If the tribunal decides the dismissal was fair and the employee is still not satisfied, he can appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (s. 136) which is presided over by a High Court judge, appointed by the Lord Chancellor, sitting with two lay members. 

According to one jurist, the decision of the UK Employment Appeals Tribunal in Lewis and Britton v EMason is an indication of the depths to... 

Where an employee complains to an Employment Appeals Tribunal, an employer must provide the following information ... 

Also in 1993, in Holmes v Hotel San Remo, the Appeals Tribunal State of Nevada Employment Security Department found that the claimant was ineligible for benefits due to discharge for misconduct violation of a known and reasonable rule. Employees were notified that the employer would comply with the Drug Free Workplace Act and random hair analysis testing would occur following a 90-day grace period. Holmes hair test indicated recent cocaine use. She was found to be ineligible for benefits. 

Procedure to be followed in making an appeal is laid down in The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules Procedure) Regulation 1993 as amended. 

Hears appeals from an Employment Tribunal on matters of law. 

Behaviour and procedures in court have developed over many hundreds of years and, in general, the procedure followed is very similar in all the courts, the main differences being the degree of formality and who is allowed to appear. Below are outlined the procedures followed in the first levels of court only, i.e. Magistrate s Court, County Court and Employment Tribunal, since it is unlikely that many readers will become involved in the complex procedures of appeals which are handled by professionally trained legal people. 

This hears cases arising from breaches of employment law where an employee complains against a decision of the employer in situations covered by the legislation. It also hears appeals against Improvement and Prohibition Notices issued by an enforcing officer. The tribunal is a civil court because the matters it considers relate to a difference of opinion between the employer and the employee, or the employer and the individual enforcing officer, over the interpretation of the law and not to a breach of the law. 

Industrial Tribunals were set up in 1964 to deal with matters arising under the Industrial Training Act of that year. Now they have statutory jurisdiction in a range of employment matters, such as unfair dismissal, redundancy payments, equal pay, and sex and race discrimination. In the context of HSW they hear appeals against prohibition and improvement notices, and applications by statutory safety representatives about payment for time off for training. 

Initially, tribunals and indeed the Courts of Appeal had grave difficulty in deciding how this particular provision should be interpreted. On the one hand, some decisions indicated that it was purely and simply the conduct of the employer and if it was sufficiently grave for the employee to have a real complaint concerning it, then he was justified in terminating his own contract of employment and claiming thereafter that he had been unfairly dismissed. But the circumstances were not always so clearly defined nor the employer s conduct as grave as the complainant would indicate. 

Other courts - Employment Tribunals These were established in 1964 and primarily deal with employment and conditions of service issues, such as unfair dismissal. However, they also deal with appeals... 

In the manufacture of tyres, part of the process emits dust and fumes that reports from America indicated might be carcinogenic. Negotiations resulted in face masks being provided as an interim measure until expensive capital equipment could be obtained which would improve matters, a step that was supported by the HSE. However, in Lindsay v. Dunlop Ltd the employee was not satisfied with these precautions and delayed removing the tyres from the press until the fumes had dispersed. This seriously affected production and, following discussion widi his union, the employer dismissed the employee. The Tribunal held that the dismissal was fair, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that the employer had taken all reasonable steps in the circumstances. 

The employment tribunal is supported by an appeals system which is ultimately routed through the same channels as both criminal and civil appeals. 

As previously discussed, an appeal system exists to enable those being prosecuted and those who have been served with enforcement notices to take their case to appeal. Appeals can be made against any enforcement notices by lodging an appeal with an employment tribunal. Table 1.4 details the consequences of appealing within 21 days against the notices served. 

A person on whom a notice has been served may appeal to the Employment Tribunal within 21 days of the service date. Where an appeal is lodged against an improvement notice, the notice is suspended pending the outcome of the appeal. In the case of a prohibition notice, the notice will stay in force pending the appeai unless otherwise directed by the Employment Tribunal. 

Issue an improvement notice, v/hich specifies a time period for the rectification of the contravention of a statutory requirement. Appeal can be made to an employment tribunal within 21 days this has the effect of postponing the notice until its terms have been confirmed or altered by the tribunal. 

Issue a prohibition notice, with deferred or, more usually, immediate effect, which prohibits the work described in it if the inspector is of the opinion that the circumstances present a risk of serious personal injury. The notice is effective until any steps which may be specified in it have been taken to remedy the situation. Appeal can be made to an employment tribunal within 21 days, but the notice remains in effect until the appeal is heard. 

An improvement notice identifies a contravention of the law and specifies a date by which the situation is to be put right. An appeal may be made to an Employment Tribunal within 21 days. 

A prohibition notice is used to stop an activity which the inspector feels may lead to serious injury. The notice will identify which legal requirement is being contravened and the notice takes effect as soon as it is issued. An appeal may be made to the Employment Tribunal but the notice remains in place and work is stopped during the appeal process. 

---