All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
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
This book is intended as a handbook for advisers to employers, providing an overview of the...