Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that it would not make an order for the claimant's�reinstatement or re-engagement. The tribunal will now reconvene to consider the question of compensatory award.
The respondent was represented by Ms A Finegan, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by South�Eastern Education & Library Board�Legal Services.
On the evidence of Ms Anderson and Mr Blayney, the tribunal found as a fact that the claimant's�former post of Employment Liaison Officer (and those of her three colleague ELOs) had been phased out, as part of a restructure, as far back as 2002 � 2003. The post had been replaced by a substantially different post, that of NVQ Support Officer. The tribunal therefore concluded that reinstatement was not a practicable option and declined in the circumstances to make an order for reinstatement.
It was clear to the tribunal that the claimant wished to be re-engaged as an alternative to being reinstated.
On the evidence of Ms Anderson and Mr Blayney, the tribunal made the following findings of fact:-
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.