Search results
1 – 10 of over 4000
The Minister of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 46 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 and after consultation with the Council on Tribunals hereby…
The Minister of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 46 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 and after consultation with the Council on Tribunals hereby…
The Secretary of State in exercise of the powers conferred on him by paragraph 21 of Part III of Schedule 1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 and after consultation…
Abstract
The Secretary of State in exercise of the powers conferred on him by paragraph 21 of Part III of Schedule 1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 and after consultation with the Council on Tribunals hereby makes the following Regulations:—
The Minister of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 46 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 and after consultation with the Council on Tribunals hereby…
Hugh Griffiths, J. Arkell and A.G. Brooks
March 22, 1974 Industrial Relations — Unfair dismissal — Compensation — Employee unfairly dismissed — No recommendation of re‐engagement — Employee obtaining new employment from…
Abstract
March 22, 1974 Industrial Relations — Unfair dismissal — Compensation — Employee unfairly dismissed — No recommendation of re‐engagement — Employee obtaining new employment from which redundant — Tribunal's review of own decision — Increased award — Whether jurisdiction to hold review — Whether tribunal right to consider new redundancy and increase award — Industrial Relations Act, 1971 (c.72), ss.5 (2), 106 (4) — Industrial Tribunals (Industrial Relations, etc.) Regulations, 1972 (S.I.1972 No.38), Sch.,r.l2 (1) (d).
The Secretary of State in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Schedule 6 to the Industrial Relations Act 1971 and after consultation with the Council on Tribunals hereby…
Abstract
The Secretary of State in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Schedule 6 to the Industrial Relations Act 1971 and after consultation with the Council on Tribunals hereby makes the following Regulations:—
John Watts and Robin Mackenzie
The purpose of this paper is to discuss and examine the implications of holding mental health tribunals in public.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to discuss and examine the implications of holding mental health tribunals in public.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper discusses the functioning of tribunals, compares tribunals with other legal processes in the UK and elsewhere, and reviews the legal reasoning for holding tribunal hearings in public.
Findings
The first tribunal hearing has already been held in public and another public hearing is agreed. Public hearings should allow for greater transparency and scrutiny than has thus far been possible, and may change the behaviour of attendees.
Originality/value
Public tribunal hearings have not yet been widely discussed in the academic literature, yet are expected to have implications for all involved.
Details
Keywords
The Minister of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 12 of the Industrial Training Act 1964 and by section 46 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 and after…
Abstract
The Minister of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 12 of the Industrial Training Act 1964 and by section 46 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 and after consultation with the Council on Tribunals hereby makes the following Regulations amending the Industrial Tribunals (England and Wales) Regulations 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the principal Regulations”):—
Globally, jurisdictions have made several attempts to eliminate and minimize discrimination in employment. These include moral suasion, social justice arguments, business case…
Abstract
Globally, jurisdictions have made several attempts to eliminate and minimize discrimination in employment. These include moral suasion, social justice arguments, business case arguments, and legislative enactments. Whilst the former has had limited success, the passage of legislation has proved instrumental, not only in containing the perpetration of discrimination based on protected grounds but also in increasing awareness of the disadvantages which result from the disparate treatment meted out to persons as a result of their immutable characteristics. Disabilities are one such grounds. Where legislation exists, it typically prohibits disparate treatment in relation to persons with disabilities in the areas of employment, education, and the provision of goods and services. This chapter analyses a sample of discrimination cases, with claimants who have alleged discrimination based on their diagnosis of autism or a related disorder within the autism spectrum. These cases are within the United Kingdom and have been decided by Employment Tribunals in England. The cases and decisions are held at the office of the Employment Tribunal Service in Suffolk and are accessible via their online repository. The sample of Tribunal cases presented here relate to various employment practices within British workplaces.
Details
Keywords
This study aims to investigate Australian civil tribunal decisions to ascertain compliance with decisional quality standards in Australian law, with a particular focus on strata…
Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to investigate Australian civil tribunal decisions to ascertain compliance with decisional quality standards in Australian law, with a particular focus on strata and community title cases.
Design/methodology/approach
An orthodox doctrinal legal analysis and assessment of cases and tribunal policies was adopted. All Australian jurisdictions were surveyed, including federal, state and territory jurisdictions. The case law in each jurisdiction was screened to identify whether the principles applicable to decisional quality were engaged and then analysed as to the extent of that engagement.
Findings
Where a party presents a substantial, clearly particularised argument relying upon established facts, tribunals are obliged to address those facts and the arguments by way of an active intellectual process. However, appellate decisions disclose a degree of deference not often accorded to judicial officers, and there is a need for a more disciplined approach to ascertain whether any errors have been made by a tribunal lie on the critical path to the decision. As strata and community title disputes become more complex, the importance of decisional quality standards can only increase.
Research limitations/implications
Up to date as of 1 March 2023.
Practical implications
The present position would appear to be that where a party presents a substantial, clearly particularised argument relying upon established facts, a tribunal must address its mind to those facts and the arguments by way of an active intellectual process. The requirement is limited to circumstances prescribed by a statute and factual and legal issues which are necessary to be determined in order for the tribunal to be satisfied as to circumstances prescribed by a statute. However, where the errors are not gross and plainly obvious, appeals from defective tribunal decisions are unlikely to succeed. There is a degree of deference not often accorded to judicial officers. That deference is unfortunate when tribunals are allocated jurisdiction over what quite often are significant property disputes.
Social implications
The impact on community living of uncorrected poor quality tribunal decisions can be immense, depending on the degree of error. For example, water ingress into people’s homes might remain unremedied for many years, as, for example, occurred in the Marinko case.
Originality/value
The research and analysis is entirely original. A search of journals and textbooks did not identify any prior analysis, at least in the Australian context, relating to decisional quality standards of tribunals.
Details