This week's EAT decisions

Contents
1. Summary of Decisions posted to EAT website this week.
2. Correction of previous posting

1. Summary of Decisions posted to EAT website this week

MR B HITCHCOCK
v
VALE CASTINGS LTD

Procedure: Submissions of ‘no case to answer’ should rarely be allowed

The transcript is available from:
http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/eat/eatjudgments.nsf/faf4a44f36aa53fc80256794004040c2/17e849b52d86b4f3802567af004971e6?OpenDocument


ANGUS COUNCIL
v
MR A EDGLEY

Unfair Dismissal: Although highly desirable, it is not mandatory for an employment tribunal to refer to the ‘range of reasonable responses’ test when determining whether a dismissal is fair or unfair.
The transcript is available from: http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/eat/eatjudgments.nsf/faf4a44f36aa53fc80256794004040c2/2fccc8b5d6bd1978802567af004f8e83?OpenDocument


OCS CLEANING SCOTLAND LTD
v
(1) PHILIP RUDDEN & 17 ORS
(2) OLSCOT LTD

TUPE: There is no rule of law stating that the re-employment (or offer to re-employ) a significant section of an existing workforce is a condition necessary before a transfer of undertakings of a labour-intensive business can occur. Insofar as people might have thought otherwise from Betts and Suzen – Betts dealt with an asset-reliant business, and Suzen had different facts!

Somewhat interestingly is the acknowledgement by Morison J. that:

"15. There is no doubt that the position in law in relation to transfers of undertakings is in a mess. The Süzen decision appears to conflict with the decision which the court had given earlier in the case of Schmidt yet it is asserted in the latter case that the former was still good law. In subsequent decisions of the court there is simply reference made to various paragraphs in their previous decisions and it would appear that there is going to be no more guidance from the European Court of Justice on the difficult question as to in what circumstances an economic entity retains its identity. That question is of particular importance and difficulty in a labour intensive business such as contract cleaning. Employment Tribunals are required to apply their minds to these questions. It is the President's view that where they have sought to apply the law as best they can, unless there has been an obvious misdirection the decision which they arrive at should be supported by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. This is such as case. We are unanimously of the view that this was a decision which the Employment Tribunal were entitled to arrive at."
Thus the EAT has made it clear it does not like TUPE appeals!

The transcript is available from:
http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/eat/eatjudgments.nsf/faf4a44f36aa53fc80256794004040c2/bf9f04ccde7c0831802567af0052aecd?OpenDocument.


2. Correction of previous posting
Henry Scrope, of DiscLaw Publishing, has pointed out an error in the posting dated 16th July 1999.
There has been an enabling clause in the Employment Rights Act 1996 allowing the government to extend employment rights to all workers (apart from the genuinely self-employed) for some time. It can currently be found at clause 23 of the Bill.
The ‘news’ element of the last posting should have been limited to detailing the research on workers / self-employed published last week by the Business Research and Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge.