After the case was referred to a governor's disciplinary panel, Dickenson’s suspension was lifted and the school took no formal action.
Dickenson returned to work in February 2016. However, the tribunal heard she was stripped of her business manager role and was “expected” to work in the main reception office and update the school's databases, until a performance improvement plan had been initiated. The business manager claimed another member of staff had told her that, once the databases had been updated, she would be able to get on with “officey things”. She added that she lost her line management duties and claimed that some of the staff she had previously managed were told to report to someone else.
Dickenson told the employment tribunal that she felt she was “left with no choice” but to leave, and resigned in April 2016 on the grounds that her suspension was unnecessary and unfair.
Edward Legard, the barrister representing Dickenson, argued that there was never any basis for a disciplinary investigation and that her return to Easington Lane Primary School was “reprehensible”, because she was stripped of all of her managerial duties without discussion. The employment tribunal unanimously concluded that Dickenson’s treatment on her return to the school was a breach of “mutual trust and confidence”. Judge Shepherd, who oversaw the case, ruled that Dickenson’s suspension was “inappropriate and unreasonable”. Dickenson’s entitlement to compensation will be determined at a further hearing. Although the tribunal found that Dickenson had been unfairly dismissed, her additional claims for direct age discrimination and harassment were not successful.
Back to Contents
Territorial Jurisdiction 1 June 2017
Is the assessment of whether an employee has a strong connection to the UK (to give an employment tribunal territorial jurisdiction to consider a claim) objective rather than subjective?
Yes, held the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Green v SIG Trading Ltd .
The Respondent (a limited company registered in the UK) employed the Claimant as the managing director of its operations in Saudi Arabia. He lived in Lebanon, commuting for two to four days at a time. He was paid in UK pound sterling, and registered with HMRC, although he was tax exempt. His contract of employment stated that it would be governed by English law and referred to some UK employment legislation. The contract also contained a mobility clause that might require him to work in the UK, and restrictive covenants that applied to the UK and Ireland. The Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and he brought claims before the employment tribunal.
The employment tribunal held that Mr Green was an expatriate employee, with stronger connections to Saudi Arabia than the UK, and they did not have territorial jurisdiction to consider his claims. He appealed.
The EAT held the employment tribunal had applied the wrong test. The focus should not have been on his role or duties, but who he worked for; a UK business. The employment tribunal had failed to carry out a proper assessment of the relevant factors. The EAT stated the proper test was an objective assessment of whether the employee's connection was stronger to the UK or to Saudi Arabia, whilst also looking at the wider context. The employment tribunal had given too much weight to the Respondent's subjective explanation for the jurisdiction clause. The parties could agree that the contract was governed by English law (and there was no dispute that a breach of contract claim could proceed), but it was a matter for the employment tribunal if the statutory employment protections applied. As the employment tribunal had disregarded a relevant factor, the appeal was upheld.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for providing this update.
Back to Contents
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Policy News Journal
cipp.org.uk
Page 73 of 516
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker