Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Case lawEmployee relationsDispute resolution

Norris v Lambert (t/a Black Bull Inn)

by Personnel Today 9 Aug 2006
by Personnel Today 9 Aug 2006

Norris v Lambert (t/a Black Bull Inn)
Employment tribunal

Statutory dispute resolution procedures and the compensation uplift

Since 1 October 2004, employers and employees have had to follow the statutory dispute resolution procedures. In disciplinary cases this involves giving the employee a written statement of grounds for dismissal or relevant disciplinary action (Step 1), setting up a meeting to discuss the issue (Step 2) and informing the employee of the decision and their right of appeal (Step 3). If an employer fails to follow the procedure and the employee subsequently brings a successful tribunal claim, the tribunal must uplift the employee’s award by 10% and may, if it considers it just and equitable to do so, increase it by up to 50%. This is one of the first reported cases dealing with the amount of the uplift that should be awarded.

Harassment

Mr Norris and Ms Robertson, both homosexuals, worked for Mr and Mrs Lambert, the proprietors of the Black Bull Inn. Both employees suffered harassment from the Lamberts and other staff on account of their sexuality. On one occasion there was an altercation between Robertson and Mrs Lambert about the amount of Robertson’s wages. It resulted in Mrs Lambert assaulting Robertson and a lot of unpleasant language was exchanged between them.

Norris overheard the incident and subsequently made known his views about how Mrs Lambert had just treated Robertson. This resulted in Mr Lambert telling Norris that if he didn’t like it he could leave. Norris was then dismissed by being marched out of the kitchen by Mr Lambert and told, using expletive and homophobic language, not to come back.

There was no attempt to put the reason for dismissal in writing, conduct any form of meeting about it, or offer any opportunity to appeal.
Robertson brought a number of claims, including unfair constructive dismissal and discrimination on grounds of sexuality. Norris brought claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, harassment on grounds of sexuality, unlawful deductions from wages and accrued holiday pay.

The tribunal awarded the maximum 50% uplift on compensation for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and sexual orientation harassment.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Key points



  • Norris’s treatment amounted to a “complete failure” by the employer to follow the statutory dismissal procedure. There was no attempt to set out the reason for dismissal in writing, conduct any form of meeting, or offer an appeal.

  • There was “no attempt” to provide the employees with written terms of employment pursuant to sections 1 to 4 of Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal awarded the maximum of four weeks’ pay to both claimants.

What you should do



  • Be aware that the uplift does not only apply to claims for unfair dismissal. Other awards attracting the uplift include discrimination, unlawful deduction of wages, unpaid holiday and notice pay. So breaching the statutory procedures can have serious financial consequences.

  • Make sure all staff get written state-ments of terms and conditions of employment within two months of starting. As this case illustrates, tribunals have the power to penalise employers who breach this legal requirement in certain cases. The amount of the award must be two weeks’ pay, but if the tribunal considers it just and equitable it can also be increased to four weeks’ pay.

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
International law firm acts to push women into senior roles in male-dominated profession
next post
NHS defends new cap on employer pensions costs

You may also like

‘Be direct’ to avoid escalating conflict, advises Acas

30 Jun 2025

Fear of confrontation means disputes escalate – research

25 Jun 2025

Seven ways to prepare now for the Employment...

20 Jun 2025

The employer strikes back: the rise of ‘quiet...

13 Jun 2025

Data ‘blind spots’ blighting employee relations

13 Jun 2025

Workplace disputes: ‘Most employment tribunals could be avoided’

12 Jun 2025

School’s bid to appeal Kristie Higgs ruling refused...

11 Jun 2025

Court rejects Liberty’s legal challenge against EHRC consultation

9 Jun 2025

US Supreme Court lowers burden of proof for...

6 Jun 2025

Liberty to challenge EHRC consultation in High Court

3 Jun 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+