At an East London Employment Tribunal hearing, the trust failed to justify paying retired nurse Gloria Emmanuel less than a male colleague in the comparative role of maintenance supervisor. These roles are deemed equal under the NHS job evaluation scheme, Agenda for Change. But the trust argued that there had been a separate bargaining processes for the pay and conditions of the claimant and other nurses, and those of her male comparator and other maintenance supervisors. However, the tribunal found that a connection between the pay variation and gender could not be avoided because the majority of NHS nurses are women and the majority of craft maintenance workers are men. The trust also claimed that the variation in the rate of basic pay was needed to maintain a connection between the pay of craft maintenance workers, including maintenance supervisors, in the NHS and in the external market. But the tribunal ruled that the pay difference was not justified by market forces, or separate processes for pay bargaining, and dismissed the trust’s defence that there was a “genuine material difference” other than gender. Follow this link for the full story 17 August 2011 Employment Appeal Tribunal judge the Honourable Mr Justice Keith has handed down Judgment in the case of M-Choice UK Ltd v Alders , which is the proposition that where an employee is dismissed with notice expiring after a year's service, but is then summarily dismissed before a year's service, the employee's right to claim 'ordinary' Unfair Dismissal is extinguished as the second dismissal displaces the first. The employee was dismissed on notice expiring on 1 February 2011. On its expiry she would have had sufficient qualifying service to present a complaint of unfair dismissal. On 11 January 2011 during her period of notice she presented a complaint of unfair dismissal. On 21 January 2011 her employers purported to dismiss her summarily. By that date she did not have sufficient qualifying service to present a complaint of unfair dismissal. The issue was what the effective date of termination was. The question at a Pre- Hearing Review was whether the second dismissal deprived the Claimant of the right to claim 'ordinary' Unfair Dismissal. The Employment Tribunal said that it did not. The EAT disagreed, applying Stapp v The Shaftesbury Society [1982] IRLR 326, holding that the Claimant's summary dismissal meant that she had never acquired the one year’s service needed to claim Unfair Dismissal. The EAT observed that there was one claim of Unfair Dismissal put alternately, and that there could only be one effective date of termination. The complaint of automatic unfair dismissal is still to be determined. SUMMARY DISMISSAL TRUMPS NOTICE PERIOD
GROSS MISCONDUCT AND BONUS
17 August 2011 In this appeal case the claimants were suspended pending an investigation into alleged gross misconduct and during this time other employees were paid a bonus.
CIPP Policy News Journal
09/10/2012, Page 45 of 234
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker