Employment tribunal & employment appeal tribunal - Case Study Example

Employment Tribunal & Employment Appeal Tribunal- Case Studies Answer to Question 3 (a) TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, Amended 2014 applies to all business organisations irrespective of their sizes, which safeguard the rights of the employees when the business is being transferred to a new acquirer. TUBE regulations are applicable when a business is hived off or sold, when business activities are outsourced or restored back to the business. Thus, TUPE regulations offer rights to employees when there is a change in employer due to acquisition or merger. It is to be noted that TUPE regulations are introduced in UK as per the “European Union Acquired Rights Directive.” The main aim of the TUPE is to safeguard the interest of an employee when they are asked to work for a new business after a buy-out. It is to be noted that TUBE regulations will be applicable if a business organisation is sold or bought either wholly or in part. However, if shares of a business is transferred or either machineries or assets are being transferred to a buyer, then, TUBE regulation will not be applicable. There is a category of employees’ namely self-employed worker who is also known as an independent contractor. These independent contractor offer services for a business through a contract for services. This category of contractor is not an employee of a company as they are offering the business with high-skilled or specialised skills. These self-employed persons can offer their services for a business through an umbrella company or as a sole trader or through a limited company or through a partnership. It is to be noted that an employee works for a business through a contract of service whereas an independent contractor works for a client’s business through a contract for service. To determine whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor, HRMC offers an employment Status Indicator (ESI) kit that employees or contractors can use to decide whether they are self-employed or employee of that business (Contractorcalculator.co.uk 2010). A self-employed contractor is an individual who is really carrying on a business for themselves if he or she assumes accountability for the failure or success of the business and is either a staff or an employee of the business. Thus, a self-employed contractor is somebody who is a sole trader and not employed through a service company or through their own limited company. In “Lane v Shire Roofing Company (Oxford) Ltd [1955] IRLR 493”, it was held that even if an individual defrays his own National Insurance contributions (NIC) and his own income-tax obligations, which may not indicate that he is under self-employed status. In “Young and Woods Ltd v West [1980] IRLR 201”, it was held that the parties cannot escape from legal outcomes of the employment connection just because by adding a specific label to the contract. For outsourcing and contracting, the UK courts have found that for the application of the TUPE Regulations, there should be an organised grouping of employees must present. Under Regulation 2(1) of TUPE, It should be demonstrated that Sandy Kyaw or Ivy Elen will come under the definition of ‘organised grouping of employees as held in “Eddie Stobart Ltd v Moreman and others (2012) IRLR 356”. In this case , for the application of TUPE provisions , it is essential to demonstrate that Sandy Kyaw or Ivy Elen is organised by reference to the needs of the clients . Thus , there should be cognisant organisation by the employer. Thus , for instance , night shift employees required to work chiefly for one client did not make them to be considered as an “ structured consortium of employees.” (Brittenden 2014). Then, it has to be considered whether there is any activity concerned under Reg.3 (1) (iii) of TUPE. In “Metropolitan Resources Ltd v Churchill Dulwich Ltd & Others”, there was a transfer of service to a MRL (new contractor) from the Churchill (old contractor). The 10 employees of Churchill argued that they had been automatically transferred to MRL under the “service provision charge” regulations of TUPE 2006. There was a pertinent transfer which was found by the Employment Tribunal. On appeal by MRL, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) raised the question, whether the activities performed by the transferee are basically or fundamentally the same as those performed the transferor? Thus, this case illustrates the meaning of service provision change is much broader than the customary test, and the tribunals will examine the scenarios widely (Brittenden 2014). “Spijkers v Gebroeders Benedik Abattoir (1986) ECR 1119”- The main element buttressed by Spijkers is whether ‘the business in dispute preserves its uniqueness. (Wynn-Evans 2013 :155).So as to decide whether those stipulations are met , it is essential to take into account all the relevant factors, including the kind of business or undertaking , whether business is sold along with all of its tangible assets , whether intangible assets like goodwill have been valued at the juncture of transfer , whether the whole or the majority of the employees have been employed by the transferee , whether customers remain the same for the transferee , whether the magnitude of similarity of the activities carried on before and after the transfer , etc. Thus, the court will look into all the above scenarios as merely single factors in the aggregate evaluation and cannot be regarded in isolation (Schutze 2015:827). Applying Spijkers case to this scenario, if the sale of Ruby Jewellery Ltd as a going concern to Sapphire Resources Ltd, it would seem that Sapphire Resources Limited would maintain the identity of a jewellery business and hence, the TUPE provisions would thus apply in this case. If Ruby Jewellery Ltd has transferred its assets to Sapphire Resources Ltd, then, TUPE provision will not apply and hence any employees working for Ruby Jewellery Limited will have their employment contracts ended. Under s98 (2) (b) of Employment Rights Act, an employer can dismiss an employee if it pertains to the conduct of the employee. Thus, Ruby Jewellery Ltd can thus dismiss Sandy Kyaw on the ground of conduct (section 98(2) ERA 1996) if she prolongs to be obstinately late. It is to be noted that Sandy Kyaw dismissal is normally not connected with the transfer. However, Sandy Kyaw can approach the Employment Tribunal, claiming that there has been an unfair dismissal. In “British Leyland (UK) Ltd v Swift [1981] IRLR 91”, it was held whether the action of an employer is fair or not in dismissing an employee under section 98(2) ERA 1996 will be decided whether it has been carried over with the equity and background of the each case(O’Leary 2013:83). As Ivy Elen is safeguarded by regulations 3(1) (b) and Regulation 3(3) of TUPE because the cleaning has been outsourced. She can initiate an unfair dismissal claim if she is dismissed because of the transfer, unless there is an ETO reason provided that if she has already put more than two years’ service in Ruby Jewellery Ltd. An ETO reason is may be an organisational , technical or economic reason to involve in transformations in conditions and terms of employment or change of place of employment or change in employer due to a TUPE transfer. For instance , Company A involves in a re-organisation of th employees footed upon its business requirements, which results in some of the transferred employees as redundant. If the Company A has undertaken a fair review which includes fail selection from transferred and their existing employees and in such cases , redundancy termination will be regarded as an ETO reason and will be regarded as fair. In “Thomson v SCS Consulting Ltd [2001] IRLR 801”, it was demonstrated that dismissal was necessary to save the business and in such case , it was considered as ETO reason. Both in “Green v Elan Care Ltd EAT/018/01” and in “Berriman v Delabole Slate Ltd [1985] IRLR 305”, it was demonstrated that redundancy was essential due to a major reorganisation and this was found to be ETO reason as per TUPE regulation 7(2)(McMullen 2012 : 360). Answer to question 3(b) “Age “is one among the nine protected characteristics as contained in “s.13 of the Equality Act 2010”. As per section 13 (1) , If an individual (X) differentiates another individual (Y) , since due to the safeguarded characteristics, and in such situation , it could be regarded as that X treats Y less positively than X considers or would treat other. As per the Equality Act 2010, it would be treated as discriminatory on the part of an employer if he offers compulsory retirement to an employee who has attained the age of 65 or above. Under the Equality Act 2010, under section 5(1), compulsory retirement will be treated as age discrimination unless it is factually warranted. Further, under the EA 2010, age is being considered as a “protected characteristics.” In accordance with the EU Equal Treatment Framework Directive 2000/78/EC, the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 was introduced in UK, and this regulation made it illegitimate with some exemption, for employers to differentiate their employees on the footing of age either in the terms of employment contract or in the promotion. “Campbell v Icopal Ltd ET/2400854/12”-In this case, Campbell, aged 54, though cleared three stages in a job interview, but the offer letter was called back due to her poor psychometric test outcomes and claimed that she was subjected to age discrimination. Campbell asserted that psychometric test scenarios were not comfortable and hence, she was subjected to age discrimination by citing fail in the test. However, the Employment tribunal did not accept her argument and decided that Campbell failed to corroborate facts so that the tribunal could have arrived at a conclusion on discrimination. The tribunal held that there was no less favourable treatment towards Campbell as compared to any other applicant and her claim of age discrimination did not succeed (“Xperthr.co.uk 2013”). “Braithwaite & Ors v HCL Insurance BPO Services Ltd; Edie & Ors v HCL Insurance BPO Services Ltd UKEAT/0152/14/DM; UKEAT/0153/14/DM”- (IDS Employment Law Handbooks 2015). In these cases , as a matter of reconstruction of business due to financial difficulties , the respondent companies requested all the staffs to consent for new conditions else they will be treated as dismissed. Aggrieved by this, the older employees raised the issue before the employment tribunal by claiming that they were subject to indirect age discrimination. The employment tribunal dismissed the claim on the basis that the employer acted purely on the basis of a “provision, criterion or practice” (PCP) and viewed that PCP was quantitatively acceptable and hence, rejected their claim. On the appeal by claimants, EAT also turned down the appeal on the ground PCP was essential as it is taken to ensure the future viability of the business (Employment Cases Update 2015). “Sash Window Workshop Ltd & Another v King UKEAT/0057/14/MC; UKEAT/0058/14/MC” – (IDS Employment Law Handbooks 2015).In this case , on the commission basis , the claimant worked for the defendant for nearly fourteen years, and his employment was terminated when he attained the age of 65. During these fourteen years of his service, he was either not compensated for the holidays or when he availed sick leave. In this case , the Employment Tribunal found that the claimant would fall under section 83(2) of the Equality Act 2010 even though his service was not covered the contact of employment. ET was of the opinion that his dismissal could be construed as an act of unauthorised discrimination. The Employment Tribunal also allowed him to claim unpaid leave wages during his service and also awarded £3000 as injury to feelings. A cross appeal was made to Employment Appeal Tribunal for the awarding a negligent sum as injury to feeling and appeal against the leave wages were made. The EAT allowed both the appeal and the cross-appeal. As regards to cross-appeal, EAT was of the view that ET had blundered in arriving at the sum for injury to the feeling and further, it had wrongly reduced the award on the footing that the claimant was only a commission-based service provider, and it had not taken into account the application of 10% enhancement recognised in “Simmons v Castle “(Employment Cases Update 2014). It is to be noted that if Susan Boyle is dismissed by Geeky Computers Limited, mainly on the ground of her age, then, it will be regarded as a direct discrimination on the footing of an age discrimination. Thus, Susan Boyle can claim unlimited damages from Geeky Computers for such age discrimination. However, Geeky Computers can justify the age discrimination if it is able to demonstrate objectively as it has to demonstrate that suspension of Boyle was taken as a balanced way of accomplishing a lawful objective. Thus, Geeky Computers can dismiss Boyle on the ground of her age, which will be legal if the action in question is demonstrated to be of proportionate ways of accomplishing a lawful objective. What is a lawful objective was defined in the case of “Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes” (Masters 2013) where Supreme Court of UK thrown some light on the subject of elements required to validate a compulsory retirement age , emphasising that the selected retirement age has to be necessary and appropriate in that specific business. Further, it added, once the retirement age is demonstrated for a business or group of employees, the employer need not to validate the same on each and every retirement on an individual case footing (Wright 2014:153). Lawful objective or justification also includes “ inter-generational fairness” thereby access to employment for younger generation and are coherent with the social policy objectives of the state , in the public interest nature and means employed are just and proportionate (Miller 2013 :132). In two recent cases namely “Loxley v BAE Systems Land Systems [2008] and in MacCulloch v Imperial Chemical Industries PLC [2008)”, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) buttressed the significance of proportionality when an employer tries to validate age discrimination. In justifying the age discrimination, employers should demonstrate that there exists both a lawful objective and proper validation of initiatives perused in fulfilment of it. Thus, an onus is placed on the employer to demonstrate that the discriminatory initiatives are proportional ways of accomplishing acknowledged lawful objectives (Holland & Burnett 2014:120). The concept of discrimination for the legitimate purpose is an intricate phenomenon and thus, it is for the employment tribunals to look into how they will validate the justification as the employer has to offer corroboration for the justification that has been initiated. Lawful objectives can be explained as economic elements such as needs and efficiency of the business, specific training needs, safety and health, the necessity for a rational period of employment before the commencement of the retirement. However, these parameters are still in the nascent stage, and it is being developed as the case laws on the subject increases (Vickers & Manfredi 2013:65). As held in “Bloxham v Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (2007)” by the Court of Appeal that offering incentives to those who have put long term service is a legitimate and reasonable policy. Under this background, Geeky Computers Limited may not be successful at claim justification on the footing of business efficiency or health and safety grounds. However, it may apply the principle “intergenerational fairness” as applied in “Bloxham v Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (2007) case”. (Barnett & Scrope 2008:161). Wing Pie should come forward to minimise the workload of Susan Boyle by having a discussion with her and by providing appropriate help if she needs. Thus, under this scenario, dismissing Boyle by citing her age is not advisable due to facts discussed earlier. Answer to Question 4 (a) 1.It is averred that Robert Thomas was working as a coach driver with the Sutcliffe & Sons Limited (employer) for the last twenty-five with the unblemished service records. 2. It is stressed that Thomas had smooth relationships with his co-employees and in earlier occasions , he had not served with either oral or written warnings for any misconduct. 3. A customer of the Sutcliffe & Sons Limited made a complaint against Thomas on 13 May 2014. The customer claimed that the Thomas was talking to someone through his mobile phone while he was driving the vehicle for a long period. A photo of the Thomas speaking through his mobile phone was also forwarded by the customer to the Respondent. 4. Sutcliffe & Sons Limited has a stern company policy that no driver of the company should use his mobile phone, particularly when they are driving the company’s vehicle. The company’s policy clearly says that in case of any emergency ,only hands-free kits are allowed especially while driving. The copies of company policy were supplied to all the employees earlier, and every employee knew about such a company policy. 5. The customer in his complaint stated that Thomas used his mobile phone for a long period, and she was more concerned about the safety of the passengers. The customer also alleged that Thomas was driving fast while they were on the motorway. 6. Thomas used his mobile while driving along the motorway was being proven without any doubt through the photo submitted by the customer. Sutcliffe & Sons Limited was of the opinion that Thomas’s demeanour was against the company’s policy.Thomas also infringed the Sutcliffe & Sons Limited mobile usage policy and endangered customer’s safety and health. Thomas’s argument that he had misplaced his hands-free kit was not also acceptable. 6. In a meeting with Robert Thomas on 14 May 2014, the management inquired the Thomas why he used his mobile phone while driving for long hours and offered a chance to Thomas to come forward with the suitable explanation.The management stressed that company’s is having a stern mobile phone usage policy while driving and thus dismissed him from service instantly 7. The main reason for the dismissal is Mr. Thomas’s objectionable demeanour. It amounted to gross wrongdoing and hence , summary dismissal was the proper solution. . For instance , in “Grundy v Kier Street Services” ET/1900684/10, the claimant worked as a driver of motor mower and was involved in an accident. He gave false statements as regards to the accident during the investigation. He was charged with flouting of safety precautions and committed a grave infringement safety and health regulations of the company. Thus, he was also charged with indulging in grave negligence resulting in intolerable damage and loss to the property of the company. The Claimant averred biased dismissal. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the company adequate grounds to deem that the claimant had indulged in misconduct. The employment tribunal found in this case, that defendant had functioned in dismissing the claimant for gross misconduct , and his dismissal was fair(“Xperthr.co.uk 2014”).. 8.However , Thomas has counterattacked the claim for unfair dismissal. In “Riverside Health Authority v Clarke” a nurse who had put 25 years’ service with the plaintiff was dismissed for gross misconduct. It was alleged that she was involved in wilful negligence of duty while she was in duty in a night shift. It was held by the EAT that even if the nurse’s action did amount to gross misconduct , EAT was of the opinion that the employer was acted irrationally in determining that it had no other choice but to dismiss her , and , hence , failed to give consideration to extenuating background , or long years of service put in by the respondent(UK Practicallaw.com 2014). Hence, Robert Thomas should stress in his ET3 form that his dismissal was not an adequate response in a specific situation as held in “Brito – Babpulle v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust.” Robert Thomas should cite in the ET3 the view held by the Court of Appeals in “Graham v The Secretary of State for Work & Pensions” where it held that employer’s findings to dismiss the employee was without the reasonable range of responses in the particular scenario. The Court of Appeals in this case was of the view that Employment Tribunal findings that the even though the employee’s conduct was amounted to “grave” misdemeanour but not “ gross” misdemeanour and the employee should have been served with a final written warning instead of dismissing him from the service (Employment Cases Updates 2012). Robert Thomas should state the following “Brito-Babapulle v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust “case in his ET 3 form, as the EAT was against the decision of the Employment Tribunal that dismissal was fair as it failed to take into account the employee’s long years’ service with the employer, the outcomes of the dismissal on the career of the employee and her track-record of unblemished earlier service record. Robert Thomas should cite the following Perry v Imperial College Healthcare Trust UKEAT/0473/10/JOJ case in his ET 3 form, as it was found by EAT that Employment Tribunal finding that there was a gross misconduct on the part of the employee was erroneous as it failed to take into account the whether dismissal fell within the ambit of reasonable responses, which was accessible to a rational employer relating to the specific facts of the present case. Robert Thomas should cite in the ET3 that It is to be noted that dismissal as a result of gross misconduct requires two things that such decision should be one that a prudent employer should have decided and was itself both rational and just in the given scenario and in his case, his employer Sutcliffe & Sons Limited had not adhered to these points. Answer to QUESTION 4 (b) Mark Sutcliffe should be aware that a verdict given by an Employment Tribunal is final until it is confronted or appealed on an actual point of law as held in “Arrowsmith v Nottingham Trent University (2010) EAT 1708/09”. An appeal against the findings of an employment tribunal (ET) can be made only if the ET has applied the law wrongly or failed to apply the right law, or has not adhered the right procedures and this had impacted the verdict, or it has not supplied adequate evidence to back its findings and was unfairly prejudiced towards a claimant as held in “Yeboah v Crofton [2002] EWCA Civ 794; [2002] IRLR 634 (CA)” (Painter & Holmes 2012:288).  Majority of the employment tribunal cases will not decide about questions of fact and hence, its decisions are as regards to matters of law. Only in very few cases, where verdicts were found to be ‘adverse’ or held to be infructuous that justice demands the verdict to be sent back for rehearing. Thus, it is to be noted that in the majority of the cases, there is no point in appealing the findings of ET if it is based on facts. The Employment Appeal Tribunal is vested with the authority to hear only appeals relating to points of law. In “Clarke v Zurich UK General Services Ltd (2010) EWCA Civ 1333-2010”, Lord Justice Rimer detailed the procedure to be followed by a claimant to file an appeal against the verdict of an employment tribunal (Wright 2014:11). Appeal Procedure Each proposed appeal will come before one of the EAT judge panel, which is known as the sift. The said judge will see in the proposed appeal, whether there exists any arguable error of law. In the absence of such error of law, the judge will then issue a notice under rule 3(7) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules, 1993, following which no further initiative as regards to the appeal will be initiated. However, Mark Sutcliffe if aggrieved due to the above, can forward revised grounds of appeal under rule 3(8). If no positive result has occurred, Mark Sutcliffe can apply for oral hearing before a judge under rule 3 (10) (Wright 2014: 157). Appeal against the decision of ET should be made within forty-two days from the date of ET verdict or the reasons were sent to Mark Sutcliffe. The appeal application should arrive at the office of the EAT by 4 pm on the deadline day. Unless, if there is a valid reason, the EAT would not grant any extension for appeal beyond 42 days. Fees and Jurisdictions A fee of £ 400 should be paid for making an appeal to EAT. Mark Sutcliffe has to pay £ 1200 if he wants a full hearing for his appeal. In case, if Mark Sutcliffe wins the case at EAT, EAT can ask Robert Thomas to pay the fees (Gov.UK 2014). EAT has restricted jurisdiction as it is empowered to hear only appeals from the decisions made by the Employment Tribunal in UK as provided by the Employment Tribunals Act ,1996. Occasionally, EAT also hears appeals from the Central Arbitration Committee also. Review A review application can be made to EAT against the decision made by an Employment Tribunal. The affected party is required to make the application to the tribunal office within fourteen days of receiving the verdict and should offer valid causes for requesting for a review such as the tribunal committed an error in the manner it arrived its verdict or new corroboration has been found since the hearing (Hse.gov.uk 2014). Mark Sutcliffe must fulfil the conditions laid down in “Ladd v Marshall (1954) 3 All ER 745” to demonstrate that fresh proof is being offered, which was unearthed after the hearing was completed. In this case , Denning LJ observed that the following three principles should be considered when there is a review petition to present fresh evidence; It must be demonstrated that the fresh evidence could not have been adduced with rational care at the time of trial; Thus , the fresh evidence would likely to have a significant impact on the outcome of the case ; and The new evidence should be trustworthy , though it needs not to be unquestionable (Daly 2008:200. List of References Barnett, D & Scrope, H. (2008) Employment Law Handbook. London: Scrope Publications Brittenden, S. (2014) Transfer of Undertakings (TUPE) Regulations 2006. [online] available from [accessed 24 March 2015] Contractorcalculator.co.uk. (2010) Independent Contractors- What are they? Employed or self-employed? [online] available from < http://www.contractorcalculator.co.uk/independent_contractors_employed_or_self_employed.aspx> > [ accessed 16 March 2015] Daly, P.(2008) Judicial Review of Factual Error in Ireland. Dublin University Law Journal 30, 187 - 213[online] available from[accessed 25 March 2015] Employment Cases Update. (2014) Sash Window Workshop Ltd & another v King [online] available from> http://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed24568 > [ accessed 17 March 2015] Employment Cases Update. (2015) Age Discrimination [online] available from http://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed26114 > [accessed 17 March 2015] Employment Cases Updates. (2012) Graham v The Secretary of State for Works & Pensions [online] available from < www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed12154?> [accesed 18 March 2015] Gov.UK.(2014) Appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). [online] available from< https://www.gov.uk/appeal-employment-appeal-tribunal/how-to-appeal> [accessed 25 March 2015] Holland, J, A & Burnett, H, S. (2014) Employment Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press HSE.gov.uk.(2014) Challenging Tribunal Decisions. [online] available from [accessed 25 March 2015] IDS Employment Law Handbooks. (2015) What Constitutes a PCP? [online] available from >http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad629030000014c4bad7b3c86cc36f4&docguid=IB67AE080C1F511E1A6B2A578A020CE13&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=1&crumb-action=append&context=77&resolvein=true>{accessed 24 March 2015] MacMullen , J.(2012) Re-structuring and TUPE. Industrial Law Journal 41 (3) 358-362 [online] available from >http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad629030000014c4ba7c85eb9543020&docguid=I1D369CC0057F11E2A66CC7BFBB5B07D1&hitguid=I1D369CC0057F11E2A66CC7BFBB5B07D1&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=2&crumb-action=append&context=70&resolvein=true >{accessed 24 March 2015] Masters , D. (2013) Seldon and Compulsory Retirement : the Final Chapter . Practical Law Companies 24, (6) 6-7[online] available from >http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad69f8e0000014c4bb39c4436892271&docguid=I8FF1ED20F68B11E2BDA98A14E3784298&hitguid=I8FF1ED20F68B11E2BDA98A14E3784298&rank=13&spos=13&epos=13&td=140&crumb-action=append&context=84&resolvein=true>{accessed 24 March 2015] Miller , T J. (2013) Overview – Economic and Safety Legislation . Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 2, (1) 131-135[online] available from >http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad8289e0000014c4d6a4dbee342015b&docguid=I2AC54D51B46B11E2917FA45141D6D677&hitguid=I2AC54D51B46B11E2917FA45141D6D677&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=9&crumb-action=append&context=19&resolvein=true>{accessed 25 March 2015] O’Leary, J. (2013) Drugs and Doping in Sports. London: Routledge Painter, R. & Holmes, A. (2012) Cases and materials on employment law. Oxford University Press Schutze, R. (2015) European Union Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press UK Practicallaw.com. (2014). Grounds for Dismissal. [online] available from >uk.practicallaw.com/books/9781845928339/chapterc1>{accessed 25 March 2015] Vickers , L & Manfredi, S. (2013) Age Equality & Retirement: Squaring the Circle. International Law Journal 42, (1) 61-74[online] available from >http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad82d080000014c4d7b4988e7865b66&docguid=I7A9C3410919811E2ABC0FFC3B718B1EF&hitguid=I7A9C3410919811E2ABC0FFC3B718B1EF&rank=2&spos=2&epos=2&td=7&crumb-action=append&context=27&resolvein=true>{accessed 25 March 2015] Wright, J M. (2014) Unfair Dismissal of Law. London: Lulu.com Wynn-Evans, C. (2013) In Defence of Service Provision Changes . Industrial Law Journal 42,(2) 152-179 . [online] available from {accessed 24 March 2015] Xperthr.co.uk. (2013) No Age Discrimination against Job Applicant. [online] available from [accessed 17 March 2015] “Xperthr.co.uk (2014) Lawnmower incident resulted in whiplash and summary. [online] available from [accessed 26 March 2015] Read More