About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

15 Managerial L. 1 (1973-1974)

handle is hein.journals/ijlm15 and id is 1 raw text is: COATES v. C.J. CRISPIN LTD. NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT Sir John Donaldson, President, Mr. R. Boyfield and Mr. R. Davies COATES v. C.J. CRISPIN LTD. May 23, 1973 Industrial Relations - Unfair dismissal - Complaint - References on originating application form to statutes other than Redundancy Payments Act, 1965 deleted - Application for redundancy payment dismissed - Tribunal's refusal to consider unfair dismissal - Whether amendment to allege unfair dismissal proper. In November 1972 the employee was dismissed by his employers. He completed an originating application form (form I.T.1) claiming a redundancy payment and deleting all references to statutes other than the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965. He wrote refusing redundancy payments when asked to describe the nature of his complaint and omitted to complete the paragraph relating to compensation for unfair dismissal. In January 1973 an industrial tribunal dismissed his application for a redundancy payment and refused to treat the claim as one for compensation for unfair dismissal. In April 1973 the employee applied to the tribunal to review their previous decision on the ground that he had made the deletions on Form I.T.I. by mistake and his application related to unfair dismissal, or to hear a fresh appli- cation for compensation for unfair dismissal. The tribunal held that since the chair- man of the first tribunal had since retired it was impossible to reconstitute a tribunal with powers to review the previous decision and that the fresh claim for compen- sation must be dismissed as it was out of time. On appeal by the employee against the first tribunal's refusal to hear his complaint of unfair dismissal:- Held, allowing the appeal, that if, at the hearing of a complaint relating to dismissal, it emerged that reference to a statute had been mistakenly deleted, the tribunal, with certain exceptions, should consider whether a redundancy payment or compensation for unfair dismissal or both was due; that the tribunal had accordingly erred in not hearing the complaint of unfair dismissal which must be remitted to the tribunal for consideration. Per curian. The Secretary of State for Employment might consider whether any amendment of the Industrial Tribunals (England and Wales) Regulations, 1965, is necessary to ensure that the right to review a previous decision cannot be defeated by longevity, death, or disaster (post p. 8). APPEAL from an industrial tribunal sitting at London.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most