Recent Employment Appeal Tribunal Cases: Summaries & Lessons for Trade Unionists

Savva v Leather Inside Out (in liquidation) & Others [2025] EAT 96

Antony Savva worked for a charity now in liquidation and brought three successive claims alleging detrimental treatment and unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures. The Employment Tribunal struck out many complaints as out of time, imposed a deposit order on others, and ultimately found no qualifying disclosures. On appeal, the EAT:

Upheld the tribunal’s time-limit and strike-out decisions in large part, confirming the strict application of the 3-month deadline and the proper use of “series of similar acts” to bundle late allegations.
Quashed the deposit order for one group of complaints.
Found errors in the tribunal’s merits judgment by omitting one claim and misunderstanding whether certain disclosures and subsequent detriments had been established. Those merits issues were remitted to a fresh tribunal.

Lessons for trade unionists

Whistleblowing claims must be lodged promptly; the “series of similar acts” exception can only rescue genuinely linked events, not disconnected incidents.
Deposit orders can be challenged – they’re not an automatic barrier to redress.
Scrutinise tribunal decisions for omitted complaints or misapplied definitions of protected disclosure; timely appeals preserve members’ rights to a full merits hearing.

Marshall v McPherson Limited [2025] EAT 100

James Marshall, an HGV driver delivering spent grain to a bio-plant, resigned after a night-shift colleague was sent to “shadow” him without warning. He said changes to plant processes, constant pressure to refill hoppers and past safety incidents amounted to a fundamental breach of trust and confidence. The tribunal dismissed his constructive dismissal claim, applying the “last straw” test too narrowly. On appeal, Lady Haldane found that:

The tribunal misdirected itself by requiring the final incident itself to be repudiatory before it could revive earlier, accumulative breaches.
This legal misdirection went to the heart of the case and undermined confidence in the original decision.
The matter was therefore remitted for rehearing before a fresh tribunal.

Lessons for trade unionists

In constructive dismissal cases, emphasise the cumulative impact of managerial failings, not only the final act.
Ensure tribunal self-directions accurately reflect authorities like Omilaju and Kaur on “last straw.”
Where legal misdirection is apparent, push for appellate review and, if necessary, a fresh hearing to safeguard members’ claims.

Logo v Payone GmbH & Others [2025] EAT 95

Mr Logo, a Black British accounts manager, complained of three acts of race harassment: a colleague in blackface at a Christmas party (2016), a racist joke at a dinner (2019) and a “Pure Blonde” beer advert circulated on WhatsApp (2020). The tribunal accepted the first two as harassment by effect but refused time-extensions, and found no race-related link in the beer advert. Judge Tayler held that:

The tribunal had erred in refusing to extend time without properly weighing prejudice to the claimant and imposing an unrequired “convincing explanation” test.
The advert of a white-blonde utopia was obviously “related to” race, and the tribunal should have assessed its effect on the claimant’s dignity rather than focusing on the poster’s intent.
Those issues were remitted for redetermination.

Lessons for trade unionists

Advise members to lodge harassment claims promptly, but press tribunals to exercise their wide “just and equitable” discretion when delays occur.
Harassment “related to” a protected characteristic does not require bad intent – focus on the context and the complainant’s perception.
Preserve contemporaneous evidence (photos of blackface, screen-captures of messages, emails requesting extensions) to counter tribunal scepticism on credibility or prejudice.

By tracking how the EAT applies time limits, cumulative breach principles and harassment tests, union advocates can spot early warning signs, frame stronger claims and marshal the right authorities when representing members.

By Pat Harrington