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.
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS At the Tribunal On 25 February 2002 Before
Subsection (3) provides examples of the way in which an employer may take in order to comply with the requirements of this section and then it is material to read Subsection (4):
Mr Flood in advancing this ground drew our attention helpfully to such findings as were made by the Employment Tribunal which are to be found in sub paragraphs xi and xii of paragraph 5 of the Extended Reasons. In there the Tribunal put the matter thus:
He further submits that implication of any adjustments in terms of the safety of fellow employees and reorganisation are not discussed, notwithstanding the requirements of section 6(4). All this means, he submits, that the present conclusions cannot be sustained, that the appeal must be allowed and that there must be a re hearing.
As was pointed out by Mr Norman in the course of the hearing, perusal of the Chairman's notes has served to show that there was indeed evidence before the Chairman that some 120 out of 180 employees worked in the shops. Granted that the balance of 60 may not have been strictly engaged in administrative duties, but the point that the Tribunal was making, namely that there was scope for movement of personnel out of the shops into other parts of this organisation, was plainly open to it and there is in our view nothing in this point at all.
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.