Steel v. London Borough of Haringey (Unlawful Deduction from Wages) [2012] UKEAT 0394_11_2607 (26 July 2012)

Steel v. London Borough of Haringey (Unlawful Deduction from Wages) [2012] UKEAT 0394_11_2607 (26 July 2012)

The Employment Tribunal erred in ruling that the claim was outside its jurisdiction; Ms Steel had advanced a sufficiently clear claim to an existing entitlement under her contract as amended by the collective agreement, bringing it within the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The interpretation of clause 7[3] of the collective agreement should be remitted for proper consideration.

Citation
[2012] UKEAT 0394_11_2607
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Ms Helen Steel; Respondent/employer: London Borough of Haringey
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
26 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted to Employment Tribunal for reconsideration before a different judge.
Legal Topics
Unlawful Deduction From Wages, Job Evaluation, Collective Agreements, Employment Rights Act 1996, Jurisdiction of Employment Tribunal
Employment Law Unlawful Deduction From Wages Job Evaluation Collective Agreements Employment Rights Act 1996 Jurisdiction of Employment Tribunal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Helen Steel

Appellant/claimant

London Borough of Haringey

Respondent/employer

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to hear the claim for unlawful deduction from wages
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was entitled to a higher pay grade based on job evaluation and the collective agreement
  3. 3 Proper interpretation of clause 7[3] of the collective agreement regarding pay protection

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in ruling that the claim was outside its jurisdiction; Ms Steel had advanced a sufficiently clear claim to an existing entitlement under her contract as amended by the collective agreement, bringing it within the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The interpretation of clause 7[3] of the collective agreement should be remitted for proper consideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted to Employment Tribunal for reconsideration before a different judge.

Orders

  • Remit the case to the Employment Tribunal to consider the arguable claims identified.
  • Remit to a different Tribunal Judge.