The Court Of Public Opinion

In the case of Vaseghi and another v. Brunel University and another [2006, the employees made separate complaints of race discrimination and claimed compensation against their employer. Settlement discussions began before an initial set of tribunal hearings in 2004, however, no settlement was reached.

Following the initial hearings, the employer released a quarterly newsletter which outlined that it was spending a large amount of money on defending employment claims. It made particular reference to two tribunal hearings which had cost in excess of 60,000. It also criticised employees and the trade union for pursuing unfounded allegations and making unwarranted demands for money. The two employees lodged grievances in response to the newsletter. They claimed the following:

* The employer had initiated the attempts at settlement;

* The employer had raised the prospect of financial settlement; and

* The newsletter had amounted to victimisation.

The grievance committee heard oral evidence on the discussions between the parties in their attempts to reach a settlement, however, it was decided that the grounds for the grievance had not been established. The employees then began new tribunal proceedings.

At the new hearings the employer challenged the admissibility of the evidence relied upon before the grievance committee by the employees. The employer argued that the evidence concerning the settlement discussions were protected by without prejudice privilege. The tribunal concluded in favour of the employer, and held that the evidence should have been inadmissible. It should be noted however that the tribunal also held that the references to the discussions in the grievance committees report would be admissible. If they were not, the case for the employees would be prejudiced. The employer appealed and the employees cross appealed.

The employer submitted that the references to the discussions in the grievance committees report should have benefited from the without prejudice privilege. They argued that the privilege was of more importance than the due administration of justice in relation to putting the case of the employees under severe prejudice.

The employees submitted that they should be allowed to use the references to the discussions in the grievance committees report, as that was the only evidence of what happened in the settlement discussions in support of their victimisation claims. They claimed that the allegations of unwarranted demands for money were not supported by what had occurred in the settlement discussions. Therefore, they argued that they should have been able to rely on the settlement discussions, despite them technically being subject to the without prejudice privilege, because there was an overriding public interest in eradicating the evils of victimisation. If they could not rely on the evidence they would not be able to present their case for victimisation.

The employment appeal tribunal held that the employees claims would have been too severely hampered were they not permitted to rely on the settlement discussions as evidence against the allegations that they had not made unwarranted demands for money. The employer, through the publication of the newsletter had brought the matter into the public domain, and subsequently could not rely on the without prejudice privilege. To prevent the employees from relying on the evidence in support of their victimisation claims would have been a clear abuse of a privileged occasion. The eradication of discrimination and victimisation was deemed more important than the protection of the without prejudice privilege. Therefore the appeal was dismissed and the cross appeal allowed.

RT COOPERS, 2006. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.

More articles at article database

The defendant resigned and found employment with one of the claimants competitors. Shortly after her resignation, the claimant discovered that the defendant had sent three e-mails to her personal e-mail account prior to leaving the company. The e-mails concerned:

* Presentations she had made to the claimants customers;

* Feedback which customers had given in relation to the claimants services; and

* Prices of the claimants products.

The claimant was of the opinion that the information contained in the e-mails was confidential and therefore violated the terms of the defendants contract of employment. The claimant confronted the defendant with its discovery.

The defendant said that she had sent the e-mails to her personal e-mail account in error, and offered to let the claimant view her personal e-mail account to show that she had not breached the terms of her contract. The claimant tried to persuade the defendant to stay in its employment, but was unsuccessful.

The claimant then instructed its solicitors to write to the defendant alleging that the defendant had breached the terms of her employment which amounted to breach of confidence. The claimant also requested the return of all its materials which were in the defendants possession. The defendant replied to the letter stating that the e-mails were not sent to anyone else, and that once the error had been discovered, she had not even opened them.

The claimant did not respond to her letter. They instead issued proceedings against her and applied for an interim injunction. They alleged that the sending of the e-mails to her personal account amounted to her using confidential information in contravention to her contractual obligations. They also alleged that by her failing to immediately return their materials, she had further breached the terms of her contract.

The claim was dismissed. The court held the where the e-mails had remained unopened the confidential information had not been used in a way which amounted to breach of confidence. Although she had not immediately returned the materials, she had previously offered the claimant the permission to view her personal e-mail account and to delete the e-mails relating to the claimants confidential information.

In addition to this, the court held that the information which was the subject of the claimants complaint was utterly innocuous and that the claimant had reacted totally disproportionately. The matter should not have been taken to court and the defendants undertakings had been adequate.

RT COOPERS, 2006. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.

More articles at article database

In the recent case of Draper v Mears Ltd [2006 the issue of whether the employer had followed the Employment Acts correctly in dismissing an employee was brought to light. The employee was employed as a plumber and was given use of a company van. The employer had a sensible rule that any company vehicle should not be operated after the consumption of alcohol. The employer operated a zero-tolerance policy in this respect, of which the employee was fully aware.

After work on one occasion, the employee parked the van near to a public house, which happened to be close to his work premises. He went to meet a colleague who had invited him out for a drink. Two of the employers managers happened to go to the same public house and discovered the employee sitting in the passenger seat of another company vehicle, with his colleague in the drivers seat.

One of the managers was of the opinion that the employee was a little drunk and challenged his proposed use for personal reasons of the colleagues company vehicle. The employee was sent a letter dated 29th October 2004 informing him he was required to attend a disciplinary hearing. The issues to be considered being cited as:

‘Using a vehicle for social purposes. Conduct which fails to reasonably ensure health and safety of oneself and others. Insubordination. A breach of the company vehicle regulations and procedures’

The employee was dismissed after the disciplinary hearing. The primary reason for his dismissal, which was set out in writing the next day, was that he was intending to drive his company vehicle after the consumption of alcohol. The employee claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and brought a claim before the Employment Tribunal. The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claim and the employee appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

The issue arose as to whether the Employment Tribunal had erred in law in deciding whether the employer had complied with the standard dismissal and disciplinary procedures as outlined in the Employment Acts. The appeal was dismissed for the following reasons:

* Firstly, the employer had to set out why he was thinking of dismissing the employee and provide the employee with an invitation to discuss the matters at hand.

* Secondly, the tribunal were entitled to find that the statutory procedures had been complied with. The letter of 29th October had successfully outlined the general nature of the alleged misconduct.

RT COOPERS, 2006. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.

More articles at articles database

Discrimination is any actions that violate Civil Rights Act on race, sex, religion, national origins, and age. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits discrimination against any person 40 years old and over. However, if you are public safety employees and tenured college employees, you may be subject to forced retirement. Furthermore, if you are an employee in executive positions at age 65, you may be forced retirement with proper retirement benefits.

If your company provides a good retirement plan, it will not go against Age Discrimination in Employment Act. A bad retirement plan will try to find a loophole. So you should read your retirement plan carefully. If you dont understand anything, you should clarify it with your lawyer. You dont want to find out later, when it is too late.

In some cases, employers may try to say that nature of a job requires age limitations on employees. You should know that Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not have a lot of flexibility in this interpretation. Employers usually use individual testing to prove job fitness on a case by case basis.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not apply to federal regulation or stature. So if you are airline pilots, you are mandated to retire at age 60. Furthermore, Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not protect apprenticeships and similar training programs for the youth.

More articles at database for articles