Case round-up by Eversheds 020 7919 4500
Sterling v Leeds Rhinos Rugby Club and others EAT, 9 September 2002, All ER(D) 110n
Sterling was employed by Leeds Rhinos to play rugby league football under a series of contracts. During his last contract, he was excluded from the first team squad and subsequently brought tribunal complaints for race discrimination and victimisation.
The tribunal found that Leeds Rhinos had racially discriminated against Sterling by excluding him from the first team and had victimised him by failing properly to investigate his complaint of race discrimination. Sterling indicated that, having brought a successful tribunal complaint, he anticipated some problems in obtaining new employment. The tribunal recommended that Leeds Rhinos should offer Sterling a contract on the same terms as his previous contract and also awarded him £10,000 for injury to feelings. However, Leeds Rhinos successfully appealed against the tribunal's recommendation of re-employment.
A tribunal's power to make a recommendation in these circumstances must be for the purpose of reducing or obviating the adverse effect of the discrimination about which he has complained. While the tribunal's recommendation of a new contract had been intended to minimise Sterling's difficulties in obtaining employment, it did not reduce the effect of his exclusion from the first team or failure properly to investigate his assertion of discrimination.
No entitlement to ill health payment
Campbell v Union Carbide Ltd EAT, 15 March 2002, All ER(D) 143
The EAT Tribunal recently ruled that an employee had no contractual entitlement to an ex-gratia payment when his employment was terminated on the grounds of ill health.
n Campbell worked for ICI plc when his employment was transferred to Union Carbide on the same terms and conditions. ICI's practice had been to make an ex-gratia payment to employees dismissed on the grounds of ill health, after an absence of six months. Campbell was absent on sick leave for six months, when Union Carbide terminated his employment. Campbell brought a tribunal claim, arguing that he was contractually entitled to the ill health payment, on the grounds that the term was implied into his contract by custom and practice. The tribunal dismissed his claim and Campbell appealed.
The EAT dismisse