Local Government Yorkshire and Humber v Shah [2012]
Published on: 31/08/2012
Article Authors
The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Background
The Claimant was employed by a primary care trust, but was on a two year secondment to the Respondent to act as a project director. The claimant raised concerns about finances and spending. She was put under pressure to leave and resigned in circumstances giving rise to a claim for PIDA discrimination. She could not return to her job with her original employer because the post had been back-filled and she was being made redundant.The tribunal found that the Claimant had suffered detriment as a result of making protected disclosures. The tribunal concluded that the Claimant, having lost the chance of extra experience and skills, had lost a one-third chance of regaining an equivalent post in a primary-care trust, taking into account that there had been a chance of redundancy in any event.It found that there had been an unreasonable failure to comply with the Acas Code within the meaning s.207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and awarded a 25 % uplift the claimant‟s compensation. It also awarded £25,000 for injury to feelings. The Respondent appealed in relation to the remedy. It submitted that the Employment Tribunal was wrong to fix the chance of some form of continued employment at one-third and any continuing loss should be calculated solely by reference to the unexpired period of the secondment. The claimant had not been entitled to an uplift under s.207A of the 1992 Act because she was a worker, not an employee and that the award for injury to feelings was excessive. The EAT concluded that the issue of continued employment was a matter for the judgement of the Tribunal and it was entitled to consider the likelihood of future employment on the evidence. The tribunal was entitled to find that an award for injury to feelings fell within the upper bracket of Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire.The appeal was, however, partly allowed on in relation to the uplift. The claimant had not been an employee of the respondent and only employees as opposed to workers could take advantage of a remedy offered by s.207A when there was a failure to comply with the Acas code.http://bit.ly/Om160W
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Already a subscriber?
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
Disclaimer
The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article.
This article is correct at 31/08/2012
Recent Case Law
Duployen v Whyte & Mackay Ltd [2025]
14/01/2025
McCahon v Chief Constable of the PSNI [2024]
16/12/2024
Q&A
How to handle it
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you
Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users.
Learn more →
