About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

15 Managerial L. 1 (1973-1974)

handle is hein.journals/ijlm15 and id is 1 raw text is: COATES v. C.J. CRISPIN LTD.
Sir John Donaldson, President, Mr. R. Boyfield and Mr. R. Davies
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
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 nearly 3,000 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 with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most