Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University. As a practising barrister, he has developed a largely civil practice representing individuals, companies and public bodies in litigation. This covers a wide range of areas including personal injuries, wills and employment law. In terms of employment law, he has represented both applicants and respondents in the Industrial Tribunal. At Ulster University, Jason lectures extensively on the civil areas of practise such as Equity and Trusts and delivers employment law lectures for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.
Summary Description:
Tribunal should have adjudicated upon a claim which was outlined in the narrative even when the box on the ET1 form was not ticked.
Background:
The ET1 form issued by the claimant brought claims in relation to failing to pay notice pay as well as defamation. The latter, of course, was not a matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The claimant’s claim was dismissed but he sought to appeal on what he regarded as a misunderstanding in terms of what he was claiming. He states that he was claiming for unpaid wages during his employment and that it had not been addressed.
The ET1 form only ticked issues relating to notice pay. However, he did state that he was not paid for any days of his work from 1st November to 18th November 2022. The box was not ticked for arrears of pay or other payments. The issue was whether it could be appealed considering that it was not decided upon by the Tribunal.
Outcome:
The Tribunal made a decision that the claimant’s claim was unsuccessful and that the evidence relating to the notice period was somewhat confusing. They found that the claimant was unable to prove that he not been paid wages until 2nd December, although it is important to note that the claimant resigned on 7th November 2022. The decision from the Tribunal was silent on the claimant’s claim that he was not paid for work between 1st and 18th November. By doing this, the EAT held that the Tribunal had fallen into error. This was not an error of law on the basis that the claim was not expressly asserted in the ET1. It was a matter that should have been dealt with and decided upon and as a result the claim was remitted back to the Tribunal for determination of that point.
Practical Guidance for Employers:
This case demonstrates the need for the Tribunal to bear in mind the ET1 form in its totality. In this case, the claimant did not tick the box but the narrative given did outline that there was a claim being brought in relation to unlawful deduction from wages and not just in relation to notice pay. The failure to adjudicate upon that issue then meant that the appeal was successful and the case was to be remitted.
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial