Tag: Mr Chagger

Importance Of Race Relation Act Questionnaire Rr65 Demonstrated By Banco Santander Group

blogger /

The importance of the Race Relations Act Questionnaire RR65 is highlighted by the high-profile Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006) UK legal case, where the Employment Tribunal made a finding of race discrimination, which subsequently led to the record-breaking compensation award of 2.8 million. In 2006, Abbey National Santander Group (the Spanish-owned UK high street bank which will soon be re-branded as Santander, and is part of the Banco Santander Group) terminated Balbinder Chagger’s employment, giving redundancy as the reason. Mr Chagger believed, however, that the real reason behind his dismissal was race discrimination. Santander Abbey National Group employed Mr Chagger (who was of Indian origin) as a Trading Risk Controller and paid him about 100,000 per annum. He reported into Nigel Hopkins.

Employees who believe they have suffered race discrimination at work and are considering pursuing legal action may serve a Race Relations Act Questionnaire RR65 upon the employer. The Race Relations Act Questionnaire RR65 procedure is set out in the Race Relations Act (Questions and Replies) Order 1977.

The employee serves his questionnaire upon the employer via form RR65. It contains some standard questions, such as to what extend does the employer concur with the employee’s version of events, what is the employer’s version of events, and does the employer accept that the employee has suffered discrimination (and if not, then why not). The employee may attach his own specific questions to the end of the standard questions.

The serving of a Race Relations Act Questionnaire RR65 is not a necessary step in dealing with the discrimination via formal legal proceedings; it is optional. But, it is a step that gives the employee a unique chance to collect evidence in support of his case (because it permits the inclusion of questions of an exploratory nature), as well as, to obtain further information useful in deciding whether to proceed with legal action or not. Therefore, the employee should seriously consider serving a questionnaire, and design the questions to uncover evidence that proves race discrimination which is known only to the employer, uncover fully the employer’s case, and ascertain which facts are accepted by the employer and which are in dispute.

The employer must respond to the questionnaire in writing within a reasonable time period (8 weeks from the date the of receipt). The employer’s answers can be submitted as evidence before an Employment Tribunal. The employer does not have to answer the questionnaire, and cannot be ordered to respond to it by an Employment Tribunal. But, failure to respond within the time limit and/or ambiguous or evasive responses may be held against the employer. Where an Employment Tribunal believes the employer deliberately and without good reason did not respond within the time limit and/or the responses were evasive or ambiguous, the Race Relations Act 1976 allows the Employment Tribunal to draw any adverse inferences it considers just and equitable, including the inference that the employer committed an unlawful act of discrimination. Thus, an Employment Tribunal could make a finding of race discrimination based solely on the adverse inferences it has drawn regarding the questionnaire; although, in reality, it is unlikely to do that, it could decide to take a serious stance on the employer’s failure to respond properly and be persuaded by it, along with other evidence. The chance of the Employment Tribunal drawing adverse inferences will be increased if the employee had asked reasonable questions and had made efforts to chase the employer and encouraged it to respond properly. The employer will not know the consequences of its failures before it faces the Employment Tribunal, at which time it may be too late for the employer to make good any failings. Thus, an employee who avails himself of the questionnaire procedure automatically gains this tactical advantage.

Such was the situation Santander Abbey National had got itself into. The Employment Tribunal found that Abbey Santander had failed in answering Mr Chagger’s questionnaire. Mr Chagger had asked Santander Abbey National to supply details of legal actions of racial discrimination brought against it since 1 January 2001. Abbey Santander responded with 17 citations of incidents. In respect of 6 of them, dating from 2001 and 2002, Santander Abbey National simply stated that the outcomes of the actions were unknown and that it was unable to obtain information regarding the outcomes during the time period in which the questionnaire had to be responded to; no further answers were ever provided to Mr Chagger. The Employment Tribunal concluded that Santander Abbey National’s response was evasive. Its failure to answer the questionnaire, along with the other evidence in the case, satisfied the Employment Tribunal that Mr Hopkins and Abbey National Santander had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in his dismissal.

The serving of a Race Relations Act Questionnaire RR65 by the employee does not in itself start off any legal proceedings; the initiation of legal proceedings requires a separate procedure. If no legal proceedings are ever initiated, then the employee’s questionnaire and the employer’s responses remain a private matter between the employer and employee. If the employee is seriously contemplating legal action based on the other evidence that suggests race discrimination, then serving a Race Relations Act Questionnaire would be appropriate, because the employer’s response may help the employee to decide. But, if the employee does not have any serious intentions regarding legal action, then to serve a questionnaire would be inappropriate because doing so may unnecessarily vex the employer and/or the responses may affect the employee emotionally into pursuing a legal action he didn’t intend to pursue.

The Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins case did not end at the Employment Tribunal stage. In 2008, it was appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). This year, 2009, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeal (being the second highest court in the land). The Court of Appeal’s List of Hearings showed that the appeal was heard on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court’s records and judgement of the hearing were not available at the time of writing this article. The 11KBW set of barristers’ chambers had reported that the Court of Appeal hearing was only about compensation (not racial discrimination as well). So, this would seem to suggest that the wrong of race discrimination committed by Abbey National Santander and Nigel Hopkins has been settled by the EAT (it had upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s finding that Mr Hopkins and Santander Abbey National had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in his dismissal).

Abbey Santander Illustrates Unfair Dismissal Remedy (reinstatement)

blogger /

Reinstatement, being the re-employment of the employee back into the role he was unfairly dismissed from (as though the dismissal had never occurred), is one possible remedy in the UK for unfair dismissal. In the high-profile case Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006), the Employment Tribunal found that Mr Chagger had been unfairly dismissed, and that both Santander Abbey National (the Spanish-owned UK bank due to be re-branded as Santander, and being part of the Banco Santander Group) and Mr Hopkins had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in respect of his dismissal. The Employment Tribunal took the rare step of ordering Abbey Santander to reinstate Mr Chagger in order to remedy its wrongdoing. Santander Abbey National, however, refused to comply with the Employment Tribunal’s reinstatement order. Following Abbey Santander’s refusal and failure to comply with the reinstatement order, the Employment Tribunal subsequently ordered Abbey Santander to pay Mr Chagger the record breaking 2.8 million compensation for his loss on the basis that he had not been reinstated. Santander Abbey National had terminated Balbinder Chagger’s employment in 2006, giving redundancy as the reason. He was employed as a Trading Risk Controller, earned about 100,000 per year, reported into Nigel Hopkins and was of Indian origin.

UK law views reinstatement of the unfairly dismissed employee as the primary remedy for unfair dismissal; reinstatement of the employee permits him to continue to enjoy the economic benefits of the role in the future and also restores the mental satisfaction that he enjoyed from his role. If reinstatement of the employee is not practicable, UK law then usually views reengagement as the next best remedy. Reengagement is re-employment of the employee into a different role to the one he was unfairly dismissed from (on terms and conditions as close as is reasonably practicable to those he was unfairly dismissed from).

After an Employment Tribunal makes a finding of unfair dismissal, it must ask the unfairly dismissed employee whether or not he wishes to be reinstated or reengaged. If the employee wishes to be reinstated or reengaged, then the Employment Tribunal has complete discretion as to whether or not to issue a reinstatement order or reengagement order. The Employment Tribunal will consider whether it is practicable for the unfairly dismissed employee to return to work for the employer and, where the unfairly dismissed employee was partly to blame for the dismissal, whether or not it would be just and equitable to issue such a reinstatement order or reengagement order.

Although they are the primary remedies, Employment Tribunals rarely ever order reinstatement or reengagement though. That’s because the reality of the process of litigation is that its vexatious nature often leaves the relationship between the employer and the unfairly dismissed employee beyond repair such that it is no longer possible for them to work together anymore; only in rare cases do Employment Tribunals decide that the relationship remains workable.

When an Employment Tribunal orders reinstatement or reengagement, then it is open for the employer to refuse to re-employ the unfairly dismissed employee. Unless the employer satisfies the Employment Tribunal that it was not practicable to comply with the reinstatement order or reengagement order, then the employer’s refusal to comply with the Tribunal’s wishes will give rise to increased compensation for the unfairly dismissed employee. If the Tribunal is dissatisfied with the employer’s reasons for refusing to comply with its wishes, then the employer will have failed to comply with what the law views as the best solution to rectify the wrong committed; then the Employment Tribunal will proceed to consider and award compensation as the next best remedy to address the employer’s wrongdoing.

Requesting reinstatement and/or reengagement may prove to be tactically useful for an unfairly dismissed employee because the employer’s failure to comply entitles him to be compensated in full for all his loss of earnings from the date of the unfair dismissal to the date of the reinstatement/reengagement order; the statutory limit (or cap) on the compensation amount does not apply. So, if the unfairly dismissed employee’s losses to the date of the hearing exceed the statutory limit, then reinstatement/reengagement should be seriously considered. Furthermore, employers generally dislike re-employing an unfairly dismissed employee so much that a credible application for re-employment could lead to higher offers of settlement from the employer. If the employer complies with the order of reinstatement/reengagement, then the employee will be expected to comply too.

The Chagger case did not end at the Employment Tribunal stage, however. The case was subsequently escalated to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), and recently had escalated to the second highest court in UK, the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal’s website showed the case was heard on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court of Appeal’s records of the case were not available at the time of writing this article. However, the King’s Bench Walk set of barristers’ chambers reported (through their website) that the hearing was limited to the issue of compensation only (not race discrimination also). That suggests that the wrong of race discrimination committed by Santander Abbey National and Mr Hopkins seemed to have been finalised by the EAT, which upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s judgement that Mr Hopkins and Abbey Santander had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in his dismissal.

Employment Grievance Procedure Illustrated With Chagger V Emilio Botin Abbey Banco Santander Group

blogger /

An employment grievance is an issue, complaint or concern over employment rights that the employee brings to the attention of his employer. The grievance may be about such things as employment terms and conditions, health and safety, equal opportunities, organisational change, work relations, working environment, bullying and harassment, and new working practices.

The UK employment grievance procedure is illustrated here with the high-profile Court of Appeal employment race discrimination case Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2009), in which an Employment Tribunal made findings of breach of contract, unfair dismissal and race discrimination, and ordered Emilio Botin Abbey Grupo Santander share price to pay Mr Chagger the record-breaking financial compensation of 2.8 million to cover his loss (Emilio Botin Abbey Santander banking group had refused to reinstate Mr Chagger as ordered by the Employment Tribunal).

Abbey Banco Santander share (the UK high-street bank being re-branded as Santander shares price, and being part of the international Banco Santander Central Hispano Group) dismissed Balbinder Chagger from his Trading Risk Controller position in 2006. Abbey Santander banking claimed the dismissal was the result of a fairly conducted redundancy exercise. Mr Chagger, on the other hand, alleged that his removal was motivated by unfairness and race discrimination. He was of Indian origin, earned about 100,000 per annum and reported into Nigel Hopkins.

There are many benefits in resolving a grievance through informal channels and, wherever possible, the employee should try to achieve this first. Failing that, a formal grievance procedure may be pursued. The procedure is meant to process the grievance with fairness, consistency and speed.

The employee initiates the formal grievance procedure by informing the employer in writing of the grounds of his grievance. The procedure then requires the employer to invite the aggrieved employee to a grievance-hearing meeting to hear the grievance. The grievance hearing must be held within a reasonable time from the date the grievance was raised, usually within 2 weeks. The employee usually has the right to be accompanied to the hearing. At the grievance hearing, the employee explains his grievance and how he would like to see it resolved. The employer is ultimately responsible for deciding how to resolve the grievance. The grievance procedure gives the employer an opportunity to handle the grievance and to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. Once the employer has decided how to resolve the grievance, the employer must notify the employee of the decision in writing, explaining that the decision may be appealed.

If the employee is dissatisfied with the employer’s handling of the grievance and wishes to pursue the grievance further formally, then he may appeal against the employer’s decision. The employee appeals by informing the employer in writing of the grounds of his appeal. The employee normally needs to raise his appeal within 5 days from the grievance outcome. The employer must then invite the employee to an appeal-hearing meeting to hear the appeal. The appeal hearing must be held with a reasonable time from the date the appeal was raised, usually within 2 weeks. The employee usually has the right to be accompanied to the hearing. At the appeal hearing, the employee explains his appeal and how he would like to see it resolved. The employer is ultimately responsible for deciding how to resolve the appeal. The grievance procedure gives the employer another opportunity to handle the grievance and to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. Once the employer has decided how to resolve the appeal, the employer must notify the employee of the decision in writing, explaining that the decision is final and may not be appealed, and that the grievance procedure has been completed and ended.

If at the end of the employer’s handling of the grievance the employee remains dissatisfied with the outcome, then the employee may escalate the his issues to an Employment Tribunal for an independent adjudication. The system of Employment Tribunal is the final channel available to an employee to determine whether or not the employer has acted appropriately. Employment Tribunals will hear disputes regarding unfair dismissal, equal opportunities, discrimination and redundancy payments.

In 2006, Mr Chagger escalated his issues to the Employment Tribunal, alleging unfair dismissal, race discrimination and breach of contract. The Employment Tribunal ruled that Mr Chagger had in fact suffered unfairness and race discrimination from Santander Abbey and from Mr Hopkins, as well as suffering breach of contract from Abbey Santander share.

The Employment Tribunal noted that Mr Chagger had tried to resolve the issues surrounding his dismissal through Abbey Santander’s grievance and appeals procedures. However, the Tribunal found that there was a culture at Santander Abbey of tending to deny and refuse Mr Chagger’s issues, and the issues were simply thrown out of hand by every Abbey Santander officer who had been assigned to decide on them. The Tribunal concluded that Emilio Botin Abbey Santander price had failed to give serious consideration to allegations of racial discrimination and to investigate them promptly.

In 2008, both Abbey Santander banking and Nigel Hopkins appealed against the Employment Tribunal’s ruling of racial discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) rejected their appeal. Thus, the original Employment Tribunal’s ruling that Abbey Grupo Santander share and Nigel Hopkins had discriminated against Mr Chagger had been upheld by the EAT. At the same time, Abbey Banco Santander and Mr Hopkins had also appealed against the record 2.8 million compensation awarded. The EAT accepted this appeal and ordered the financial compensation to be sent back to the original Employment Tribunal for reconsideration on the basis, amongst others, that the Employment Tribunal should have considered whether to reduce the compensation to take account of the chance that Mr Chagger could have been dismissed in any event.

In 2009, Mr Chagger appealed to the UK Court of Appeal against the EAT’s rulings regarding the compensation. The Court of Appeal partly upheld Mr Chagger’s appeal, but upheld the EAT’s ruling that the compensation be sent back to the original Employment Tribunal for reconsideration on the basis that the Employment Tribunal should have considered whether to reduce the compensation to take account of the chance that Mr Chagger could have been dismissed in any event.

Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Nigel Hopkins did not appeal against the EAT’s ruling on race discrimination; they appear to have conceded they racially discriminated against Mr Chagger.

Proving Race Discrimination In Employment

blogger /

Direct race discrimination is when an organisation (or an employee of the organisation) treats a person less favourably than someone else on racial grounds. Proving direct race discrimination is not trivial. The burden of proof is on the employee alleging the discrimination. The UK landmark case of Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins of 2006, where the Employment Tribunal’s finding of race discrimination led (after Abbey National’s refusal to comply with the Tribunal’s order to re-instate Mr Chagger to remedy its wrongdoing) to the record 2.8 million compensation order, serves to illustrate the burden of proof in race discrimination. Abbey National (being re-branded as Santander from 2010 and being part of the Banco Santander Group) employed Balbinder Chagger as one of its two Trading Risk Controllers, both managed by Nigel Hopkins. Mr Chagger was of Indian origin. He earned approximately 100,000 per year. Abbey National dismissed him in 2006, apparently for reasons of redundancy. The redundancy pool of selection was he and the other Trading Risk Controller, a white female.

The employee alleging the race discrimination must prove that his employer, on the balance of probabilities, discriminated against him on racial grounds. On the balance of probabilities means that the alleger needs to prove that it is more likely than not that the employer treated him differently on the grounds of his race; the alleger does not need to prove with absolute certainty that the employer discriminated.

The alleger must prove that he was treated less favourably than someone else (preferably a real comparator, but it could also be a hypothetical comparator) on the grounds of race. This can often be very difficult because the employer will almost always deny that the alleged discrimination had anything to do with race.

Mr Chagger established a case based on facts suggesting there had been race discrimination. The Employment Tribunal found that Mr Chagger had been selected for redundancy and had been dismissed and that a real comparator (the other Trading Risk Controller) had not. The Tribunal noted that there was a difference in race, colour and ethnic origin between Mr Chagger and the comparator. The Tribunal noted the following: Mr Chagger’s selection for redundancy was grossly unfair; Mr Hopkins had predetermined that Mr Chagger would be the employee that would be selected for redundancy; Mr Hopkins had used the redundancy selection process as a means to remove Mr Chagger from his position; Mr Hopkins had reduced Mr Chagger’s redundancy scores on matters which no reasonable employer would have taken into account; Abbey National provided no Equal Opportunity training for any of the managers it assigned to hear and decide on Mr Chagger’s issues and complaints of race discrimination; Abbey National failed to answer Mr Chagger’s Race Relations Act Questionnaire; and Abbey National was in breach of the statutory Code of Practice on Racial Policy in Employment by failing to carry out monitoring, failing to take allegations of race discrimination seriously, and failing to investigate them promptly.

If the alleger can establish a case based on facts suggesting there has been race discrimination, then the burden of proof could shift to the employer to prove otherwise. The employer will then be burdened with the task of having to prove that it would have treated in a similar way someone else who was not of the same racial group as the alleger. If the employer does not have any non-discriminatory explanation, or if the Tribunal finds the explanation inadequate or unsatisfactory, then the Tribunal must infer discrimination on racial grounds.

The Tribunal was satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, Abbey National and Mr Hopkins had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in respect of his dismissal. The Tribunal, therefore, passed the burden of proof to Abbey National and Mr Hopkins to show that there was no discrimination whatsoever in respect of Mr Chagger’s selection for redundancy and dismissal.

The employer will almost always deny that the alleged discrimination had anything to do with race. The explanation that Abbey National and Mr Hopkins put forward was that the selection for redundancy and dismissal was carried out fairly. The Tribunal rejected this explanation for the factors listed above. Abbey National then put forward an alternative explanation, that Mr Hopkins and Mr Chagger could not have had any reasonable working relationship (that is, the difference in treatment suffered by Mr Chagger was for a reason other than racial grounds). The Tribunal could not rely on this explanation; it was an explanation that Mr Hopkins himself did not accept.

Ethical Behaviour Risk Factors Lessons From Emilio Botin Abbey Santander 2009

blogger /

Some of the factors that increase the risk of unethical behaviour in organisations are illustrated by the high-profile legal case Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006), in which the Employment Tribunal made a finding of unlawful racial discrimination and (further to Emilio Botin Abbey Santander banking group’s refusal to comply with the Tribunal’s order to reinstate Mr Chagger) ordered Abbey Banco Santander share to pay Mr Chagger the record-breaking 2.8 million compensation for his loss. Abbey Santander share price (the UK bank soon to be re-branded as Santander banking group, and part of the global Emilio Botin Banco Santander Central Hispano Group – BSCH) dismissed Mr Chagger from his employment in 2006, giving a fair redundancy as the reason. However, Mr Chagger believed that the actual reason behind the termination of his employment was unfairness and race discrimination. Mr Chagger was of Indian origin. He worked for Emilio Botin Abbey Santander finance as a Trading Risk Controller, earning about 100,000 a year, and reporting into Nigel Hopkins.

Some ethical behaviour risk factors illustrated by Emilio Botin Abbey Santander 2009 clearly relate to the pursuit of personal goals; the Employment Tribunal found that Mr Hopkins personally desired Mr Chagger’s employment with Abbey Santander share price to be terminated, had pre-planned that Mr Chagger would be dismissed, and had used the compulsory redundancy process as a means to dismiss Mr Chagger, in an unfair and discriminatory manner.

One such factor increasing the risk of unethical behaviour is the amount of discretion an organisation allows its officers; the greater the discretion allowed, the greater the opportunity the officer has for acting in his personal interests. The Employment Tribunal found that the redundancy selection criteria Abbey Santander had permitted Mr Hopkins to apply in assessing and judging the two employees up for redundancy were highly subjective and un-measurable; they afforded Mr Hopkins a very wide discretion. The Employment Tribunal criticised Mr Hopkins for the way in which he had applied that discretion (i.e., for his own interests). As an example, Mr Hopkins had criticised and scored Mr Chagger lower for getting on with work and being self-reliant. The Employment Tribunal thought that other reasonable managers would consider such qualities to be valuable assets, considering Mr Chagger’s highly paid and highly responsible job, and praise and score him highly for. As a further example, during the redundancy process, Mr Hopkins had criticised Mr Chagger on numerous points that Mr Chagger had never been criticised for prior to the redundancy exercise. All the criticisms were inconsistent with previous company records of Mr Chagger’s performance. The Employment Tribunal ruled that the criticisms were unfair not legitimate.

Another such factor increasing the risk of unethical behaviour is the level of autonomy of decision-making and action an organisation allows its officers; the greater the level of autonomy, the greater the opportunity the officer has for acting in his personal interests. The Tribunal found that Mr Hopkins was entirely single-handedly able to advise Abbey’s management to dismiss one of the two Trading Risk Controllers that he managed (of which Mr Chagger was one), was entirely single-handedly able to make Mr Chagger an offer of voluntary redundancy (Mr Chagger refused the offer, and never was an equivalent offer ever made to the other Trading Risk Controller), was entirely single-handedly able to judge and score the two employees up for redundancy, and was entirely single-handedly able to lower Mr Chagger’s redundancy scores to guarantee that he would be the one who would be selected for dismissal.

A different type of factor also increasing the risk of unethical behaviour is the organisation’s focus; a focus on results rather than processes can imply that the ends justify the means. The UK statutory Code of Practice on Racial Policy in Employment provides organisations with guidance concerning good practices and processes. The Employment Tribunal found that Abbey Banco Santander had failed to comply with those processes. Abbey Grupo Santander had failed to comply with the statutory guidance regarding Equal Opportunity training. Mr Chagger had tried to resolve the issues of unfairness and race discrimination around his dismissal directly with Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins, through the company’s grievance procedures. Santander Abbey had not provided any Equal Opportunity training to any of the managers it had assigned to decide on Mr Chagger’s issues. Not even one manager upheld Mr Chagger’s issues; his issues were simply dismissed out of hand. Emilio Botin Abbey Santander banking group had also failed to comply with the statutory guidance concerning monitoring procedures. The Tribunal found a multitude of monitoring failures (far too many to outline here), as well as the failures to give serious consideration to allegations of racial discrimination and to investigate them promptly.

In 2008, Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) against the original Employment Tribunal’s ruling of racial discrimination; the EAT upheld the original Tribunal’s ruling that both Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger. Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had also appealed against the record-breaking 2.8 million compensation award; the EAT accepted Abbey Santander’s appeal on the compensation award and remitted it to the original Tribunal for reconsideration. In 2009, matters were escalated to the Court of Appeal (the second highest court in the UK). The Court’s List of Hearings showed that the case was heard on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court’s records of the hearing were not available at the time of writing this article. The 11KBW set of barristers’ chambers, who represented Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins, had reported prior to the hearing that the it was to be about quantum only (i.e., compensation) and not about liability (i.e., not about the wrong committed of race discrimination). That would seem to suggest that the wrong of race discrimination committed by Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Nigel Hopkins was finalised by the EAT when it upheld that Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger, and that Mr Chagger had appealed against the EAT’s ruling to send the compensation award back to the Employment Tribunal stage for reconsideration.