Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

Employment Law

Legal guidance - compliance - software

13 SEP 2013

Onu v Akwiwu UKEAT/0283/12/RN & UKEAT/0022/12/RN; [2013] IRLR 523; (2013) EMPLR 037

1 May 2013

Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)

Langstaff J, Mr B Beynon and Mr P Gammon MBE

Victimization after employment has ended does give an ex-employee a right to complain to an employment tribunal. Rowstock Limited v Jessemy was wrongly decided.

O worked as a domestic worker for the A family. After she had left the A family, O complained to a tribunal of discrimination and failure to pay the national minimum wage. O claimed that, after submitting these claims, Mr A threatened her. O made a further complaint of victimization.

Mr and Mrs A argued that the victimization claim could not proceed because the victimization provisions do not apply to victimization which takes place after employment ends (as was held in Rowstock Limited v Jessemey). The EAT disagreed - somehow concluding that s 108(7) (which specifically precludes post-employment victimization claims), only makes sense if those drafting the legislation had assumed that that post-termination victimization was provided for elsewhere in the legislation.

To view the case transcript, you must subscribe to Jordans Employment Law Online (if you already subscribe click here to log in).

To request a free trial click here and select Jordans Employment Law online from the drop down menu

Jordan Publishing Employment Law

Jordan Publishing Employment Law

"exceptional value for money in today's challenging legal environment" John Mitton, PG Legal

Available in Employment Law Online

Law of Termination of Employment, The

Authoritative analysis of the rules governing termination of employment provides coverage of the...

More Info from £99.00
Subscribe to our newsletters