Previous Article Next Article Case round-up by Eversheds 020 7919 4500Tribunal recommendsre-employment Sterling v Leeds Rhinos Rugby Club and others EAT, 9 September 2002, AllER(D) 110n Sterling was employed by Leeds Rhinos to play rugby league football under aseries of contracts. During his last contract, he was excluded from the firstteam squad and subsequently brought tribunal complaints for race discriminationand victimisation. The tribunal found that Leeds Rhinos had racially discriminated againstSterling by excluding him from the first team and had victimised him by failingproperly to investigate his complaint of race discrimination. Sterlingindicated that, having brought a successful tribunal complaint, he anticipatedsome problems in obtaining new employment. The tribunal recommended that LeedsRhinos should offer Sterling a contract on the same terms as his previouscontract and also awarded him £10,000 for injury to feelings. However, LeedsRhinos successfully appealed against the tribunal’s recommendation ofre-employment. A tribunal’s power to make a recommendation in these circumstances must befor the purpose of reducing or obviating the adverse effect of thediscrimination about which he has complained. While the tribunal’srecommendation of a new contract had been intended to minimise Sterling’sdifficulties in obtaining employment, it did not reduce the effect of hisexclusion from the first team or failure properly to investigate his assertionof discrimination. No entitlement to ill health payment Campbell v Union Carbide Ltd EAT, 15 March 2002, All ER(D) 143 The EAT Tribunal recently ruled that an employee had no contractualentitlement to an ex-gratia payment when his employment was terminated on thegrounds of ill health. n Campbell worked for ICI plc when his employment was transferred to UnionCarbide on the same terms and conditions. ICI’s practice had been to make anex-gratia payment to employees dismissed on the grounds of ill health, after anabsence of six months. Campbell was absent on sick leave for six months, whenUnion Carbide terminated his employment. Campbell brought a tribunal claim,arguing that he was contractually entitled to the ill health payment, on thegrounds that the term was implied into his contract by custom and practice. Thetribunal dismissed his claim and Campbell appealed. The EAT dismissed his appeal. The fact that the payment had always been madedid not in itself give rise to the implication of a term by custom andpractice. It could not be inferred that both parties intended the ill healthretirement payment to form a term of the contract, and Union Carbide wastherefore not contractually bound to make such a payment. Case round-upOn 22 Oct 2002 in Personnel Today Comments are closed. Related posts:No related photos.