The EAT (Langstaff P sitting alone) held that the death in service benefit was a contractual right which Mr Fox lost at the point he was dismissed. It did not matter that an employee would never be able to enjoy the proceeds of the benefit; the opportunity to use such a benefit for his dependents or causes he wished to support is also of value to the employee. This loss would normally be valued as the cost of the insurance premium for a policy which will as nearly as possible provide the payment which the employee should have received under the death in service benefit. This premium will vary with the circumstances. In this case, where the court knows that the employee died shortly after dismissal and no mitigation argument was raised, the cost of providing for payment of a lump sum known to be due within a short period of time is no less than that sum itself (the full value of the death in service payout). Langstaff P emphasised that this was because of the particular and unusual facts of this case. The EAT also considered section 206(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 which provides for the appointment of appropriate representatives to instigate or continue litigation after the death of an employee. Langstaff P held that the correct procedure for instigating a claim is to make an application to the employment tribunal to be appointed as an appropriate representative and to wait for the application to be granted. Once it is granted, and only then, can a claim be validly submitted. If this means, through factors outside the representative's control, that a relevant time limit expires, then the employment tribunal will recognise that fact when applying the 'reasonably practicable' test in relation to time limits.
CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL
8 August 2012
If an employer upholds an employee's grievance about treatment by his immediate manager, can this prevent the employee relying on the treatment to show a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence?
Yes it can, says the EAT in Assamoi v Spirit Pub Company .
Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin reports:
The employee worked as a head chef and raised a grievance about how he was being treated by his immediate manager. This was upheld by more senior managers who took steps to rectify the situation. The EAT found that although the immediate manager had behaved badly towards the employee this did not, by itself, amount to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The actions of the more senior managers had prevented the matter escalating into a state of affairs that would have justified the employee leaving and claiming he was constructively dismissed. There is a distinction between preventing matters escalating into a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence and trying to cure a breach which has already taken place. Once a breach has taken place it cannot be cured - Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation v Buckland [2010] ICR 908 CA.
UNPAID WORK SCHEME DOES NOT BREACH HUMAN RIGHTS
8 August 2012
Is it slave labour and therefore unlawful to force an individual in receipt of Job Seekers Allowance to participate in a 'work for your benefit' scheme?
CIPP Policy News Journal
12/04/2013, Page 55 of 362
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker