Walker v North Tees & Hartlepool NHS Trust [2008] UKEAT 0563_07_0307 (3 July 2008)

Walker v North Tees & Hartlepool NHS Trust [2008] UKEAT 0563_07_0307 (3 July 2008)

The Employment Tribunal erred by conflating the tests of necessity and reasonableness under Regulation 4(2)(b) and by focusing on whether there was a refusal rather than whether additional time off was necessary. Both appeal and cross-appeal are allowed; the case is remitted for rehearing by a fresh Employment...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] UKEAT 0563_07_0307
Parties
Claimant: Mr Peter Walker; Respondent: North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
03 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Employment Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal decision set aside.
Legal Topics
Time Off for Safety Representative Training, Interpretation of Safety Representatives and Safety Committee Regulations 1977, Application of Regulation 4(2) and 11(1)
Employment Law Time Off for Safety Representative Training Interpretation of Safety Representatives and Safety Committee Regulations 1977 Application of Regulation 4(2) and 11(1)

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Peter Walker

Claimant

North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Employment Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer failed to permit the claimant to take necessary paid time off for reasonable training as a safety representative under Regulation 4(2)(b) of the 1977 Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal applied the correct tests of necessity and reasonableness under Regulation 4(2)(b)
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's actions constituted a refusal under Regulation 11(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred by conflating the tests of necessity and reasonableness under Regulation 4(2)(b) and by focusing on whether there was a refusal rather than whether additional time off was necessary. Both appeal and cross-appeal are allowed; the case is remitted for rehearing by a fresh Employment Tribunal.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal decision set aside.

Orders

  • Case remitted for rehearing by a fresh Employment Tribunal on the health and safety course issue.