you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My limited understanding of UK employment comes from following the Maya Forstater case.

From that, I got the impression that decisions or rulings in cases before employment tribunals in the UK do not constitute legal precedent. In other words, someone issuing a decision in an employment tribunal cannot interpret the laws of the UK made by Parliament in a way that expands and remakes them across the board.

Can anyone fill me in?

[–]anonymale 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

IANAL. Employment tribunals do not set legal precedents but employment appeal tribunals - the next tier up - may, and so may higher courts. Here's an example. British cyclist Jess Varnish lost an employment tribunal appeal which, had she won it, may have established in law that 'amateur' athletes training under 'athletic performance agreements' with their sport's governing body are employees with rights such as maternity leave entitlement. She was dropped from her team by a fragile sexist arsehole coach who hid behind 'performance reasons', when actually he didn't like her public criticism.

All the reports I've read on Taylor's case say that while not a binding precedent it is going to be influential in future tribunals.