| UK employment disputes grievances and court | | | | mistakes in legal reasoning by the Employment |
| structure is illustrated by the high-profile Chagger v | | | | Tribunal). The EAT will not look into matters about |
| Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006) legal case, where | | | | facts of the case. In 2008, Santander Abbey and Mr |
| the Tribunal made a finding of racial discrimination | | | | Hopkins appealed to the EAT against the Employment |
| which led to the record £2.8 million compensation | | | | Tribunal's ruling of racial discrimination and against the |
| award. Abbey Santander banking group (the UK retail | | | | record-breaking £2.8 million compensation awarded. |
| bank due to be re-branded as Santander price, and | | | | The EAT considered the appeals. It upheld the original |
| being part of the gigantic Emilio Botin Banco Santander | | | | Employment Tribunal's ruling that Santander Abbey |
| Central Hispano Group, BSCH) terminated Balbinder | | | | and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr |
| Chagger's employment in 2006, asserting compulsory | | | | Chagger in respect of his dismissal. However, it |
| redundancy as the reason. Mr Chagger, on the other | | | | accepted Santander Abbey's appeal concerning the |
| hand, believed the true reason behind his dismissal was | | | | £2.8 million compensation award and decided to |
| racial discrimination. Mr Chagger was of Indian origin | | | | send back the compensation amount to the original |
| and worked as a Trading Risk Controller for | | | | Employment Tribunal for reconsideration. |
| Santander 2009. He earned about £100,000 per | | | | The party that is dissatisfied with the ruling of the EAT |
| annum and reported into Nigel Hopkins. | | | | may make an appeal to the next higher-level court, the |
| An employee who has suffered employment related | | | | Court of Appeal (the second highest court in the land). |
| unfairness and/or discrimination could decide to make | | | | The Court of Appeal will look into appeals against |
| an appeal. The initial place of appeal would be to the | | | | rulings made by the EAT. As before, the appeals must |
| employer, in the form of a formal grievance. The | | | | only be about points of law (i.e., an appeal must only be |
| employee lodges a formal grievance letter with the | | | | about mistakes in legal reasoning by the EAT). The |
| employer, and the employer is responsible for | | | | Court of Appeal will not look into matters about facts |
| processing the grievance and deciding the outcome. | | | | of the case. In 2009, the Chagger v Santander Abbey |
| Thus, the employer is given the first the opportunity to | | | | case was appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court |
| handle the employment dispute and to close it | | | | of Appeal's List of Hearings showed that the case |
| satisfactorily. Mr Chagger's grievances and issues, | | | | was heard on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court of |
| however, were simply dismissed out of hand by Emilio | | | | Appeal's records concerning the outcome of the |
| Botin Abbey Santander share price. | | | | hearing were not available at the time of writing this |
| If the employee and the employer are unable to | | | | article. The 11KBW set of barristers' chambers (who |
| resolve their employment dispute by themselves, then | | | | represented Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins), had |
| the employee may appeal to an Employment Tribunal | | | | reported that the hearing was to be only about |
| for an objective resolution. UK Employment Tribunals | | | | quantum (i.e., compensation) and not liability also (i.e., not |
| will hear matters about redundancy payments, unfair | | | | racial discrimination also). That would appear to |
| dismissal and discrimination. Mr Chagger took his | | | | suggest that the wrong of race discrimination |
| matter to the Employment Tribunal by initiating legal | | | | committed by Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins was |
| action against both Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins, | | | | finalised by the EAT (it upheld the original Employment |
| on the grounds of unfair dismissal and racial | | | | Tribunal's finding that Mr Hopkins and Santander |
| discrimination. The Employment Tribunal considered the | | | | Abbey had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger), |
| evidence and ruled that Mr Chagger had in fact been | | | | and that Mr Chagger had appealed against the EAT's |
| both dismissed unfairly and racially discriminated | | | | ruling to send back the compensation amount back to |
| against by both Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins. In | | | | the Employment Tribunal stage for reconsideration. |
| order to remedy the wrong of race discrimination | | | | The party that is dissatisfied with the ruling of the |
| Santander Abbey had committed, the Employment | | | | Court of Appeal may appeal to the next higher-level |
| Tribunal ordered the company to reinstate Mr | | | | court, the House of Lords. Appeals to the House of |
| Chagger. However, Santander Abbey refused to | | | | Lords require the Court of Appeal's approval. |
| comply with the Employment Tribunal's reinstatement | | | | Furthermore, the Court of Appeal must require the |
| order. The Employment Tribunal then ordered Abbey | | | | House of Lords to decide upon a question of general |
| Santander to pay Mr Chagger £2.8 million | | | | public importance. As previously, appeals to the House |
| compensation for his loss, as an alternative to | | | | of Lords must only concern points of law and not be |
| reinstatement. | | | | about facts of the case. The House of Lords is the |
| The party that is dissatisfied with the Employment | | | | highest court in the land and the final stage of appeal |
| Tribunal's ruling may appeal to the next higher-level | | | | for most legal cases in the UK. Occasionally, cases |
| court, being the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). | | | | may be approved for appeal to the European Court |
| The EAT will look into appeals against rulings made by | | | | of Justice, which has jurisdiction on matters of |
| the Employment Tribunals. The appeals must only be | | | | European Community law. |
| about points of law (i.e., an appeal must only be about | | | | |