header-logo header-logo

Objecting conscientiously

28 June 2007 / Suzanne Palmer
Issue: 7279 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Suzanne Palmer discusses the clash between breach of contract claims and statutory grievance procedures

There has been much discussion about the various problems, amounting to a technical minefield for the unwary, posed by the practical application of the statutory dispute resolution mechanism instigated by the Employment Act 2002 (EA 2002) and the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/752) (the regulations). This article examines a problem apparently unique to breach of contract claims brought under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 (SI 1994/1623) (the order) and the combined effect of EA 2002 and the regulations on such claims.

BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS

EA 2002, ss 31 and 32 are both predicated on the premise that one of the statutory procedures applies. The next point of reference here is the regulations, which state (in reg 2) that “applicable statutory procedure” means “the statutory procedure that applies by virtue of these Regulations”. Regulation 3 sets out the circumstances in which the statutory disciplinary procedure (SDP) applies—where the employer contemplates dismissal

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll