Reward insight
this case as an indication of the importance of drafting a clear appeal outcome letter which addresses all allegations that have previously been lodged against affected individuals. Santos Gomes v Higher Level Care Ltd In the recent case of Santos Gomes v Higher Level Care Ltd the Court of Appeal was asked to determine whether an employee was entitled to compensation for ‘injury to feelings’ because her employer failed to facilitate an adequate number of rest breaks. Santos Gomes had worked for the employer, which provided accommodation and support to vulnerable young people, from February 2013 to May 2014. It came to light that during her employment she had been denied the requisite rest breaks that were owed to her under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (‘the Regulations’). She had specifically been denied her rest break of twenty minutes on numerous occasions when working shifts of over six hours, which she said had resulted in damage to her health and wellbeing. The claimant brought this claim, amongst others, to an employment tribunal which ruled that the employer had failed to abide by regulation 30 of the Regulations, by denying her the appropriate rest breaks, and awarded the claimant £1,200 in compensation. However, the tribunal was not inclined to agree with Santos Gomes’ claim that she was owed additional compensation due to injury to feelings under regulation 30(4)(a) which states compensation should be “just and equitable”. In dismissing this claim the judge explained that this regulation did not provide for compensation for injury to feelings and that this award was limited to cases involving discrimination in line with the Equality Act 2010. Santos Gomes decided to appeal this decision seeking further compensation; however, the EAT similarly dismissed her claim. In its decision the EAT noted that the claimant was herself unable to point to any prior instance in which injury to feelings compensation had been awarded in a claim not involving a form of discrimination. The EAT summed up that withholding rest breaks was the equivalent to a breach of contract and that the original tribunal had ruled correctly in their case. Despite this the claimant proceeded
to lodge an appeal with the Court of Appeal. She also noted the existence of European Union regulations on the matter and requested that if it was unclear how domestic law should be interpreted in line with these regulations then reference should be made to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Court accepted that the previous decisions of the ET and EAT had relied on statute and therefore decided to explore existing case law. Although they found that previous cases had in fact ruled that injury to feelings compensation could be granted in situations other than discrimination, these examples had all involved detriment on the grounds of trade union membership and were therefore not comparable. The Court therefore concluded that the ET and EAT had acted correctly in these circumstances, dismissing the appeal and the claimants request to refer the case to the ECJ. This ruling reiterates clearly that the intention of the wording contained in the Regulations is not designed to allow additional compensation for injury to feelings when it comes to withholding rest breaks.
leave commitments. Smith was invited to a second hearing scheduled for after her return; however, her union representative, whom she wished to accompany her, was not available for a further two weeks. Her request to postpone the meeting further was rejected by the employer, who proceeded with the hearing without Smith in attendance and decided to summarily dismiss her. Smith proceeded to bring a claim for unfair dismissal to ET, arguing that her dismissal was unfair as she was not afforded an opportunity to postpone the disciplinary hearing to a time when her union representative was available. In the ruling the ET held that although the employer had shown a potentially fair reason for dismissal, their decision to dismiss was procedurally unfair. They added that all reasonable steps should have been taken to allow Smith to attend her disciplinary hearing, including allowing a second postponement, and that no reasonable employer would have refused this request. The ET awarded Smith £22,257 in compensation as a result. The employer proceeded to appeal this decision with the EAT, believing the ET had made a mistake in substituting their own views for those of the employer. They also referenced the wording of section 10(5) of the Employment Relations Act 1999, which states an alternative time for postponed hearings must “be reasonable and fall before the end of the period of five working days”. Despite this the EAT dismissed the employer’s appeal, rejecting their argument in relation to section 10, as Smith’s initial claim was for an unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for a refusal to postpone the disciplinary meeting, not for any breach of the right to be accompanied. The EAT concluded that the initial tribunal was correct to find that the employer was hasty and unreasonable in their actions and that the subsequent dismissal was unfair. This outlines the importance of allowing particularly where this is to accommodate a period of ill health, pre-arranged annual leave or trade union involvement. Even if the decision to dismiss is for potentially valid reasons employers must always allow employees access to the correct procedure to avoid claims of unfair dismissal. n employees the ability to reasonably postpone their dismissal hearings,
...outlines the importance of allowing employees the ability to reasonably postpone their dismissal hearings...
Talon Engineering Limited v Smith In the case of Talon Engineering Limited v Smith, the EAT was asked to determine if a dismissal decision where the employer refused to postpone the disciplinary meeting could be considered unreasonable. Issues first occurred when Mrs Smith, who had worked for the employer from 1994 to 2016, was found to have sent a series of emails to a customer using insulting and offensive language to describe a colleague. Smith was suspended and invited to a disciplinary hearing; however, this initial hearing had to be postponed due to sickness and pre-arranged annual
43
Issue 44 | October 2018
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward |
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker