Experiencing discrimination at work?

For Lambrou v Cyprus Airways Ltd [2007]concerned an employee who alleged that he was constructively unfairly dismissed. The employee was hired by Cypriar Tours Ltd ("Cypriar"), which was a subsidiary of the employer. The worker has been hired as a computer operator on January 23, 1989. However, from May 1, 2003, he also worked for the employer. In June 2004 all employees were notified that within three to four months Cyprian will cease all activity. The employee had not received his written work for the Employment, requested for the employer contract. The manager informed written account; the employee would be transferred to their payroll on 1 October. On September 27, staff sent an e-mail seeking clarification from the transfer officer. After learning that his P45 was issued for inter company purposes, the employee requested for a copy. His application was rejected at first, but was sent on 24 September.

The employer appealed. An issue arose as to whether the employee had failed to present a grievance in respect of the constructive unfair dismissal as required by the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004.The appeal would be allowed.It was held that dismissal claims were not subject to the requirement that they went through a grievance unless they were for constructive dismissal. What was required to be presented as a grievance was the same complaint as the employee sought to have determined before the tribunal. In this case, the very limited basis upon which the claim had been allowed to go forward by the tribunal had been incorrect. The only basis on which the claimant had got through the gateway to a hearing of his constructive unfair dismissal claim was reliance upon the emails. The complaint sought to be determined before the tribunal was that the employer had deemed the employee's contract not to be binding.

In the earlier emails there had been mention of the dispute about the precise terms and conditions of employment tribunals. However, in those earlier emails there had been no indication that the employee regarded his contract as void or that he would take steps to leave. It followed therefore that that was not the same complaint as was presented to the tribunal and thus it had been wrong to allow that part of the case to go forward.