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.
Background:
The claimant had been employed by the respondent, a solicitors firm, as a costs resolution manager. He was made redundant in late 2018 following an efficiency review. The claimant brought three claims to the Tribunal. This related to unfair dismissal citing the redundancy as a sham, unlawful deductions as he said he was entitled to bonuses in full and harassment relating to a telephone call with managers. This related to an accusation made to him of insubordination and that he had to decide ‘on the spot’ whether he was fit to work.
Outcome:
At first instance, the Tribunal found in the claimant’s favour only in relation to the unfair dismissal claim. This was on the basis that the claimant was not given the opportunity to appeal the decision. The bonuses claim was dismissed as they were discretionary with no contractual right to them and the harassment claim was dismissed as they did not violate his dignity or create a hostile environment even though the comments were found to be in relation to the claimant’s anxiety and depression for which he had been off work. Both the claimant and the respondent appealed the Tribunal decision.
The EAT found that the Tribunal did err in failing to approach the deduction claim with reference to the meaning of wages. However, even in taking that approach the claim would be dismissed. The contract clearly outlined that the bonus was discretionary with no legal entitlement to it. Similarly, the harassment appeal was dismissed with the EAT finding that it was fact sensitive, and that the Tribunal had examined the facts alongside the legal test.
The EAT dismissed the appeals relating to the unfair dismissal. The Tribunal had taken the redundancy situation and looked behind to ensure that it was the true or principal reason for the dismissal. It was also found that it was a genuine redundancy situation, and it rejected the claimant’s arguments. As a result, there was no error of law.
Practical Guidance for Employers:
Whilst this decision tackles various aspects of pertinent employment law – the main learning point can be seen with the decision relating to the bonus payments and unlawful deduction from wages. The EAT outlined that the focus should be on the statutory instruments first and outlined the definition of wages before going into the contract existing between the claimant and respondent. In this case, when it came to the contract the right was discretionary and no entitlement to the bonus was seen in law. However, the process in getting to that decision by the Tribunal was regarded as being an error by the EAT.
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
