العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
EspañolEMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
The 'Employment Appeal Tribunal' is a superior court of record in Great Britain.[1] Its primary role is to hear appeals from Employment Tribunals in England, Scotland and Wales. It also hears appeals from decisions of the Certification Officer and the Central Arbitration Committee and has original jurisdiction over certain industrial relations issues.
The Tribunal may sit anywhere in Great Britain, although it is required to have an office in London.[2] Its current office is in Audit House, 58 Victoria Embankment, EC4Y 0DS, overlooking the river Thames.
Although it is a superior court of record, the Tribunal may not make a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998.[3]
There are two classes of members of the tribunal:
★ nominated members, who are appointed from English and Welsh Circuit Judges, Judges of the High Court and the Court of Appeal as well as at least one Judge from the Court of Session.[4]
★ appointed members, who must have special knowledge or experience of industrial relations either:
★
★ as representatives of employers
★
★ as representatives of workers
Members are nominated or appointed (as the case may be) by the Lord Chancellor. One of the nominated members is selected as President. The post is currently held by the Hon. Mr Justice Elias.
The EAT is governed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 (as amended in 1996, 2001, 2004 and 2005), and further by its Practice Direction. Parties are expected to understand and apply these rules.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) only has jurisdiction to allow appeals on points of law. Appeals on facts are only allowed in exceptional circumstances, on the ground that a tribunal decision was so perverse or defective that no reasonable tribunal could have arrived at that decision. A pervesity appeal will only succeed if the party overwhelmingly demonstrates that Employment Tribunal's decision was one which no reasonable tribunal, on a proper appreciation of the evidence and the law, would have reached (Yeboah v Crofton CA 2002 EWCA Civ 794).
Where a party is dissatisfied with a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal may apply to the tribunal requesting a Review of its own decision. The EAT may also review its decision of its own motion. Decisions can be reviewed where an error is relatively minor, eg a clerical error. Where a party believes the tribunal has misapplied the law or acted perversely, the review process is inappropriate and the party must appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Weaver v NATFHEIn the Weaver v NATFHE race discrimination case, an industrial tribunal decided that the union’s principal obligation in race harassment cases is to protect the tenure of the accused employee. A member of a trade union making a complaint of workplace harassment against a fellow employee and member of the same union was not entitled to union advice and assistance, irrespective of the merit of the case, because the employee complained against could lose his job. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the decision and extended the decision to cover complaints of sexist harassment.An application to the Court of Appeal confirmed the EAT's decision.
Parties are expected to comply with strictly enforced time limits when applying for a Review or Appeal.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal was created in 1975[5] as a successor to the National Industrial Relations Court, which had been abolished in 1974.
Weaver v NATFHE (now part of the UCU)In the Weaver v NATFHE race discrimination case, an industrial tribunal decided that the union’s principal obligation in race harassment cases is to protect the tenure of the accused employee. A member of a trade union making a complaint of workplace harassment against a fellow employee and member of the same union was not entitled to union advice and assistance, irrespective of the merit of the case, because the employee complained against could lose his job. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the decision and extended the decision to cover complaints of sexist harassment.An application to the Court of Appeal confirmed the EAT's decision. Also known as the Bournville College racial harassment issue
★ the Tribunal's wepage
1. s. 20 Employment Tribunals Act 1996
2. s. 20(2) Employment Tribunals Act 1996
3. Whittaker v P & D Watson (t/a P and M Watson Haulage) [2002] ICR 1244
4. s.22(1) Employment Tribunals Act 1996
5. s. 87 Employment Protection Act 1975
The Tribunal may sit anywhere in Great Britain, although it is required to have an office in London.[2] Its current office is in Audit House, 58 Victoria Embankment, EC4Y 0DS, overlooking the river Thames.
Although it is a superior court of record, the Tribunal may not make a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998.[3]
| Contents |
| Membership |
| Procedure |
| Jurisdiction |
| Appeals from the EAT |
| History |
| External link |
| References |
Membership
There are two classes of members of the tribunal:
★ nominated members, who are appointed from English and Welsh Circuit Judges, Judges of the High Court and the Court of Appeal as well as at least one Judge from the Court of Session.[4]
★ appointed members, who must have special knowledge or experience of industrial relations either:
★
★ as representatives of employers
★
★ as representatives of workers
Members are nominated or appointed (as the case may be) by the Lord Chancellor. One of the nominated members is selected as President. The post is currently held by the Hon. Mr Justice Elias.
Procedure
The EAT is governed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 (as amended in 1996, 2001, 2004 and 2005), and further by its Practice Direction. Parties are expected to understand and apply these rules.
Jurisdiction
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) only has jurisdiction to allow appeals on points of law. Appeals on facts are only allowed in exceptional circumstances, on the ground that a tribunal decision was so perverse or defective that no reasonable tribunal could have arrived at that decision. A pervesity appeal will only succeed if the party overwhelmingly demonstrates that Employment Tribunal's decision was one which no reasonable tribunal, on a proper appreciation of the evidence and the law, would have reached (Yeboah v Crofton CA 2002 EWCA Civ 794).
Appeals from the EAT
Where a party is dissatisfied with a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal may apply to the tribunal requesting a Review of its own decision. The EAT may also review its decision of its own motion. Decisions can be reviewed where an error is relatively minor, eg a clerical error. Where a party believes the tribunal has misapplied the law or acted perversely, the review process is inappropriate and the party must appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Weaver v NATFHEIn the Weaver v NATFHE race discrimination case, an industrial tribunal decided that the union’s principal obligation in race harassment cases is to protect the tenure of the accused employee. A member of a trade union making a complaint of workplace harassment against a fellow employee and member of the same union was not entitled to union advice and assistance, irrespective of the merit of the case, because the employee complained against could lose his job. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the decision and extended the decision to cover complaints of sexist harassment.An application to the Court of Appeal confirmed the EAT's decision.
Parties are expected to comply with strictly enforced time limits when applying for a Review or Appeal.
History
The Employment Appeal Tribunal was created in 1975[5] as a successor to the National Industrial Relations Court, which had been abolished in 1974.
Weaver v NATFHE (now part of the UCU)In the Weaver v NATFHE race discrimination case, an industrial tribunal decided that the union’s principal obligation in race harassment cases is to protect the tenure of the accused employee. A member of a trade union making a complaint of workplace harassment against a fellow employee and member of the same union was not entitled to union advice and assistance, irrespective of the merit of the case, because the employee complained against could lose his job. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the decision and extended the decision to cover complaints of sexist harassment.An application to the Court of Appeal confirmed the EAT's decision. Also known as the Bournville College racial harassment issue
External link
★ the Tribunal's wepage
References
1. s. 20 Employment Tribunals Act 1996
2. s. 20(2) Employment Tribunals Act 1996
3. Whittaker v P & D Watson (t/a P and M Watson Haulage) [2002] ICR 1244
4. s.22(1) Employment Tribunals Act 1996
5. s. 87 Employment Protection Act 1975
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
