This month’s case round up news in brief…
Discrimination claim in time after nine years
The Court of Appeal concluded that a complaint of race discrimination
brought nine years after the incident complained of should be allowed to
proceed.
In 1999, during ongoing tribunal proceedings, the applicant inspected his
personal file and discovered evidence of discriminatory treatment in 1990. He
brought a second claim. The Court of Appeal ruled that it was just and
equitable to extend time to allow this second complaint to be made.
(Southwark London Borough Council v Afolabi, CA)
Failure to consider re-deployment was disability discrimination
The applicant suffered from depression due to an incident at work. Medical
advice suggested that re-deployment to another location was the only option to
assist the applicant to return to work. HMP failed to consider the issue of
re-deployment at all when dismissing the applicant, and this was a failure to
make reasonable adjustments under Section 6(1) of the DDA.
(HMP v Beart, Court of Appeal)
Ballot for industrial action valid
The union’s notice of a ballot for industrial action indicated that those to
be balloted were employees who paid union subscriptions via the employer’s
payroll. The employer argued that this was a defective notice as the Data
Protection Act prevented them from using the payroll information for purposes
other than the sole permitted purpose of deducting subscriptions. The High
Court acknowledged that there was force in that argument, but considered itself
bound by earlier Court of Appeal authority (in which the Data Protection Act
point had not been considered) to rule that the ballot was valid.
(Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College v Unison)
Comments are closed.