Ms Connor was forced to leave her job after a parent govenor, Paul Martin, made allegations that members of staff had made racist comments and a local education authority govenor, Mr Saleeme, was verbally abusive at meetings. The High Court was told how both individuals managed to stir up disaffection in the community against the school.

The Respondent requested confirmation from the Claimant’s GP that he was fit to drive. However, the Claimant’s GP refused to provide such information and felt they should instruct a doctor privately. The Respondent refused to do this and insisted that the Claimant obtain confirmation of his ability to drive. The Claimant was subsequently dismissed with effect from 15 December 2006.

Following his dismissal, but prior to his appeal meeting, the Claimant obtained a letter from his consultant confirming that his condition and his treatment should not stop him from driving. The Respondent decided this evidence was insufficient as it did not confirm that he could drive a commercial vehicle.

The EAT held that it is a question for the Tribunal to consider the loss sustained by the Claimant as a consequence of his dismissal. The Tribunal had awarded the Claimant what he would have earnt up until he became unfit for work by reason of his psychiatric problems due the breakdown of his marriage.

However the EAT held this was too narrow. The Tribunal ought not to have treated the supervening psychiatric illness as a cut off point. The Tribunal ought to have considered the period after the Claimant became unfit for work. The Tribunal ought to have considered whether the Claimant would have received any pay or benefit during this period, for how long he would have been employed, and whether he would have been able to return to work during this period. The matter was referred back to the Tribunal.

He said to MPs that there would be no further site closures for manufacturing in the UK and that there would be no further compulsory redundancies in manufacturing in the UK in the next two years.  The lawyer in me could not help but read between the lines and question the fact that they were quite specific about manufacturing what about office staff and that they could get volunteers at a price or compromise people out of the business under the radar.  We will have to see if my scepticism is well founded……. watch this space.

The Claimant failed to comply with the Unless Order and the Respondent subsequently asked the Tribunal to strike out the claim. Unbeknown to the Respondent, the Claimant had been remanded in police custody for a period of time and had therefore not had access to the correspondence from the Respondent or the Tribunal.

The EAT concluded that a Tribunal should exercise its discretion in considering whether to strike out a claim where a party has failed to comply with a Tribunal Order, especially where the Claimant had been remanded in custody and had been unable to access his mail.

With a general election coming up no doubt eggs, rotten fruit and vegetables will be thrown during the course of the campaign. John Prescott if you remember hit back at egg throwers by throwing the odd punch himself, he’s not called “two jabs” for nothing. Lord Mandelson got splattered with green gunge last year by a protester but took it with uncharacteristic good humour very well.

Our politicians take these thrown projectiles with relatively good grace and it is rare for any charges to be pressed. Spare a thought for the rock throwers at last year’s protests at election time in Iran. They have just had their sentences handed down.

In brief the Claimant had been employed for less than 12 month’s as a HGV driver. In November 1998 the Claimant was in Dewsbury when he received a telephone call from his line manager requesting that he pick up a load from Billingham the following morning. The Claimant informed his line manager that he had had a heavy week and he was not likely to be a state to do the job the following morning. The conversation was left with the Claimant’s line manager having given him an instruction to pick a load up the folloiwng morning.

However, the following day the Claimant spent three hours in Hull and returned to Teesside without having picked the load up in Billingham. He refused to return to get the load and was subsequently dismissed for refusing to obey reasonable instructions.

The Claimant, who had less than 12 month’s service, claimed that his dismissal was automatically unfair. He claimed that he refused to collect the load because he had had a busy week and he was tired. He therefore argued that his refusal was on the grounds of health and safety and his subsequent dismissal for refusing to obey an instruction was automatically unfair.  

The Tribunal found that the Claimant did not give any evidence to suggest that he believed there was any danger in picking up the load, he was only tired, and he had not exceeded his driving hours. Therefore, the Tribunal found that his refusal to do the job he was instructed to do did not amount to a health and safety risk and his subsequent dismissal was not tyherefore automatically unfair.

Mr Martin (age 63) applied to the Council for the post of pupil support worker and was an elected Councillor at the time of his application.  His job application was rejected, on, he alleged, grounds of age.

The relevant law is Regulation 3(1) The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 which provides that an employer discriminates against an employee if, on the grounds of age, they treat him/her less favourably than they would treat another person.   Regulation 27 of the Regulations provides that the provisions of the Regulations will not render unlawful any act done in order to comply with a requirement of any statutory provision.

Which takes us on to Section 76 of the Local Government Scotland Act 1973 which provides that a person cannot for so long as he is a member of the local authority be appointed by that authority to any paid office.

At Tribunal the Council therefore submitted that the claim should be struck out on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospects of success.  They argued that it was perverse to suggest that a discrimination claim could arise from refusing to consider a person for a post in circumstances where they were prohibited, legally, from employing that person.

The Tribunal found against the Council on a technicality.  They said that, in order to get the benefit of Regulation 27, the mental motivation had to be the need to comply with the statutory provision.  Since the person responsible for the decision to reject the application did not know Mr Martin was a Councillor, then the need to comply with the statutory prohibition cannot be the mental motivation.

The EAT disagreed and determined that the Tribunal fell into error when looking at the mental motivation of the person responsible for the decision.  The EAT determined that a local authority has no mind, and cannot form or hold an intention.  It is therefore not relevant, for the purpose of Regulation 27 to ask what was in the mind of the local authority employee.  What was relevant was to look at whether the authority would have been acting within its powers.  It was plainly necessary for them to reject the application from Mr Martin.

The EAT have therefore struck out Mr Martin’s claim on the grounds it has no reasonable prospects of success.

His absence opens up the chance to take a player in good form who can start and play the full game.  A Beckham less squad would give the team far more options and better balance.

With Ashley Cole and Beckham out, we need to keep Rooney wrapped up in cotton wool between now and his first game in the World Cup, because if he gets injured our World Cup chances would take a severe dent.

Contingency plans are crucial in all businesses for many different reasons from disaster recovery to succession planning. At the end of the day you cannot plan for every eventuality but in many ways BA have had a lot of notice of the potential for distruption.  If both sides stay entrenched and the strike proceeds it is likely to have a negative impact on the Company and its future. Let’s hope BA do not join the long list of the casualties from the recession.