Goodman & Ors v. Members of The Executive Committee Of Shropshire Unison & Ors [2010] UKEAT 0004_10_1103 (11 March 2010)

Goodman & Ors v. Members of The Executive Committee Of Shropshire Unison & Ors [2010] UKEAT 0004_10_1103 (11 March 2010)

The grievances, read in context, included a claim of whistle-blowing and satisfied the statutory requirements; the Employment Judge misdirected himself by failing to consider the context and relevant legal principles, particularly that a second grievance is not required for post-grievance detriment.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] UKEAT 0004_10_1103
Parties
Appellant: Julie Craig; Appellant: Kay Goodman; Appellant: Sarah Aramayo; Respondent: Shropshire County UNISON
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
11 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Employment Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted to Employment Judge for determination at first instance.
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosure, Whistle Blowing, Grievance Procedure, Jurisdictional Requirements, Detriment
Employment Law Protected Disclosure Whistle Blowing Grievance Procedure Jurisdictional Requirements Detriment

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julie Craig

Appellant

Kay Goodman

Appellant

Sarah Aramayo

Appellant

Shropshire County UNISON

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Employment Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants' grievance letters constituted a written complaint about post-grievance detriment related to protected disclosure
  2. 2 Whether Employment Act 2002 s32 requires a second grievance for post-grievance detriment
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Judge misdirected himself on the construction of the grievance letters

Ratio Decidendi

The grievances, read in context, included a claim of whistle-blowing and satisfied the statutory requirements; the Employment Judge misdirected himself by failing to consider the context and relevant legal principles, particularly that a second grievance is not required for post-grievance detriment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remitted to Employment Judge for determination at first instance.

Orders

  • Matter remitted to Employment Judge Prichard for determination on Selkent principles.
  • Permission to appeal refused.