Case round-up

first_img Previous Article Next Article Related posts:No related photos. Comments are closed. Case round-up by Eversheds 020 7919 4500Subsequent events render dismissal unfair Colvin v Attol Business Systems Limited, EAT, [2003]All ER (D) 121 In this case, a redundancy dismissal became unfair as a consequence ofsubsequent events. Colvin worked alongside one other colleague, but it became necessary to makeone of them redundant. Colvin was selected and given notice, and he then leftemployment. Shortly afterwards, his colleague resigned, and the position wasadvertised in the job centre. Colvin was not offered the job and brought anunfair dismissal claim. The tribunal held that there had been inadequate consultation during theselection process, and found that Colvin’s employment would have continued foranother month had a fair procedure been followed. Compensation was limited to that period. Colvin appealed against the awardon the basis that the company’s failure to offer him the other job meant hisdismissal was unfair for reasons other than just the lack of consultation. TheEAT allowed his appeal. Had Colvin been engaged for the additional month, there would have been noneed for the company to advertise externally for his colleague’s position to befilled. It was unfair to carry out an otherwise genuine redundancy dismissal whenmore work became available, or the pool of people to be dismissed had reduced. Cause of the impairment should be disregarded Power v Panasonic UK Limited, EAT, [2003] IRLR 151 Power was employed as an area sales manager. Following a reorganisation,Panasonic reduced the number of area sales managers. Power was signed off sick,and was eventually dismissed. She then brought a claim of disabilitydiscrimination. It was agreed by both medical experts that she was suffering from depressionand drinking heavily during her period of sick leave. In deciding whether Power was disabled under the Disability DiscriminationAct, the tribunal had to consider whether alcoholism had caused Power’sdepression, or whether depression was the cause of her alcoholism. The tribunal held that Power was not disabled within the meaning of the Act,on the basis that alcohol addiction is expressly excluded as an impairment forthe purposes of the statutory definition of disability (under the DisabilityDiscrimination (Meaning of Disability) Regulations 1996). Power appealed, citing the statutory guidance on the definition ofdisability, which provides that a tribunal should not have regard to the causeof an impairment, even if the cause itself would not amount to a disability orimpairment within the meaning of the Act. Her appeal was allowed. The EAT said that it is not material to a decisionas to whether a person is suffering a disability to consider how the impairmentwas caused. A tribunal must ascertain whether the impairment itself is adisability within the meaning of the Act, or whether it is an impairmentexcluded by reason of the regulations. The case was remitted for a rehearing. Case round-upOn 25 Mar 2003 in Personnel Todaylast_img read more