Chestertons v Collins
Chestertons v Collins
- 1986
- Estates Gazette 280(6312) 29 November 1986,1147-1152(4) .
CA 28 July 1986. An appeal by Chestertons , estate agents ,from a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal which had dismissed their appeal against an industrial tribunal award. The respondent was employed as a negotiator for residential property. Chestertons proposed to transfer the employee to their City office, which dealt with the sale of commercial property. He refused, subsequently resigning alleging constructive dismissal . He initiated proceedings with an industrial tribunal which directed itself solely to the question of costs. Without substantive evidence, the tribunal considered Chestertons had acted unreasonably towards their employee and ordered them to pay his costs. Costs are not normally awarded by industrial tribunals except in exceptional circumstances. Chestertons appealed to the EAT who were critical of the tribunal`s decision but dismissed the appeal. The CA held,firstly,that the industrial tribunal had wrongly exercised its discretion as to the award of costs
DISMISSAL
EMPLOYMENT
CA 28 July 1986. An appeal by Chestertons , estate agents ,from a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal which had dismissed their appeal against an industrial tribunal award. The respondent was employed as a negotiator for residential property. Chestertons proposed to transfer the employee to their City office, which dealt with the sale of commercial property. He refused, subsequently resigning alleging constructive dismissal . He initiated proceedings with an industrial tribunal which directed itself solely to the question of costs. Without substantive evidence, the tribunal considered Chestertons had acted unreasonably towards their employee and ordered them to pay his costs. Costs are not normally awarded by industrial tribunals except in exceptional circumstances. Chestertons appealed to the EAT who were critical of the tribunal`s decision but dismissed the appeal. The CA held,firstly,that the industrial tribunal had wrongly exercised its discretion as to the award of costs
DISMISSAL
EMPLOYMENT