Remedies

Case 2: the facts

Mr Bass succeeded in his claim of constructive dismissal and was awarded compensation. However, he appealed against the remedy on the grounds that the tribunal had not advised him of the possibility of reinstatement or re-engagement and had not properly dealt with this matter.

The ruling

The EAT noted that the tribunal has a duty under section 112 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to explain to the claimant what remedies can be ordered in what circumstances, and ask whether s/he wants an order to be made. It then went on to consider whether the tribunal had complied with this duty in Bass’s case and concluded that it had.

Although the tribunal chair had not used the terms “reinstatement” and “re-engagement”, he had asked Bass whether he would want his old job back and, if that was not available, another job with the same employer. The EAT said it was acceptable for a tribunal to put the matter in lay terms in this way. As the employer’s evidence was that Bass’s job was no longer available and there was a job freeze resulting from budgetary constraints, the EAT held that the tribunal had been permitted to find that reinstatement or re-engagement was not practicable.