1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152 
Strictly legal
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I write in response to your article headed "Employment Appeals Tribunal," which appeared in CM October 12, 1979.
The article, in as much as it deals with Haden Carrier, contains fundamental errors of fact. The true facts are as follows.
May 9, 1978. A. Duffy y HCMC, Industrial Tribunal Case No 8874/78 was found in favour of Duffy. He was found to have been unfairly dismissed because when he was made redundant adequate consultation did not take place. He was not unfairly selected, the matter revolved purely around consultation.
February 1, 1979. HCMC appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (Case No EAT/ 607/78) against the compensation on the grounds that the damages awarded should cover only the loss that was directly due to the lack of consultation and not to the redundancy as a whole, as the redundancy itself was fair in other respects.
HCMC cited the case of Clarkson International Tools Ltd v Short (1973) ICR 191. Council for Duffy claimed that the Tribunal had been treating the redundancy itself as unfair and not just the consultation. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the Industrial Tribunal "was limiting the unfairness to the failure to consult. However we cannot see that the compensation which they have assessed is or can be limited in the way in which Sir John Donaldson indicated that it ought to be limited. "It seems to us that the Tribunal, on the face of it, have accordingly erred in their assessment of the compensation." They referred the case back to the tribunal for reassessment.
July 10, 1979. The matter was reassessed by the Industrial Tribunal who found that the correct compensation was in fact £200 and awarded accordingly.
fail to understand how your reporter could have read the Employment Appeal Tribunal report as he claims and written what he did, which is a complete reversal of the truth, I would be grateful if you could put the matter straight in a forthcoming issue of your otherwise excellent publication.
S. GOWANS, Assistant Public Relations Officer, Haden Carrier Ltd; London, WC1