This week’s case round up

first_imgThis week’s case round upOn 5 Dec 2000 in Personnel Today Delayedresignation did not prejudice claimAbbey National v Robinson, unreported November 2000 EATRobinsonmade a formal complaint about her manager after being bullied by him for abouta year. He was then disciplined and Robinson was told he would be transferredto another role. But at a meeting in August 1997, Abbey National indicated themanager would not be transferred after all and offered Robinson alternativeemployment, which she declined. In July 1998, Robinson resigned and brought asuccessful claim of constructive dismissal. The tribunal found that Robinsonhad resigned because of the effect of Abbey National’s conduct after the Augustmeeting. AbbeyNational unsuccessfully appealed, arguing the tribunal had misdirected itselfby disregarding the fact that the resignation took place almost a year afterthe repudiatory breach – that is, the failure to transfer the manager in 1997.The EATheld the tribunal was correct to consider the entire period from the time ofthe repudiatory breach until the resignation. Further, a breakdown in trust andconfidence could be established by a course of conduct over a period of timeand not simply by a single event. Comments are closed. Previous Article Next Articlecenter_img Two awards for injury to feelings appropriateRoselec v Cashmore and Anystaff Recruitment, EORDiscrimination Digest 45 EATCashmore, afemale electrician, was registered with Anystaff, whose client, Roselec,refused to interview her because it felt electrical work was inappropriate fora woman. Cashmorebrought successful sex discrimination claims against both firms. The tribunalheld there were two acts of discrimination, one by Roselec when it refused tointerview Cashmore, another by Anystaff when it knowingly aided the commissionof an unlawful act by Roselec. Further, the tribunal found that Anystaff hadprevented Cashmore from finding out the real reason for being refused work. Thetribunal awarded £3,000 compensation for injury to feelings against bothRoselec and Anystaff.On appeal,the EAT rejected the argument that Cashmore had suffered injury to feelingsonly once and that the £3,000 should be split. It held that even though thediscrimination arose from one episode, there were different areas of injury:Roselec’s refusal to interview Cashmore injured her feelings, as did thepossibility that Cashmore’s chances of finding work through Anystaff wereinhibited. Separate awards were appropriate. Related posts:No related photos.last_img read more