The Court of Appeal has held that an employer in the financial sector that poached staff from a rival could not enforce dishonestly obtained forward contracts with employees who later decided not to move.
The Court of Appeal has held that employment tribunals do not have jurisdiction to construe contractual terms and conditions contained or referred to in written statements of particulars of employment.
This case is a reminder to employers of the dangers of making fundamental changes to an employee's job when attempting to cut costs during a business downturn.
The industrial tribunal in Northern Ireland has awarded over £40,000 for unfair dismissal to an employee who resigned after his employer breached his contract of employment on numerous occasions.
In Manchester College v Cocliff EAT/0035/10, the EAT held that an employment tribunal erred when it decided that there had been less favourable treatment on grounds of fixed-term status because it had found that any difference in terms was not objectively justifiable. Tribunals should first consider whether or not any less favourable treatment is on grounds of fixed-term status. Only if the answer is yes should they move on to consider the defence of objective justification.
An employment tribunal has found that an individual employed on three consecutive fixed-term contracts over almost a decade is a permanent employee, in a case that has significance for employers in sectors that regularly employ staff for a fixed term, such as teaching, IT and construction.
The employment tribunal in this case increased the amount of compensation awarded to an unfairly dismissed employee because of his employer's failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment or to dismiss him in accordance with the Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures.
In Dunn and anor v AAH Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 183 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employee was guilty of gross misconduct in failing to report a serious financial risk faced by his employer to its parent company. His contract expressly required such a report to be made, and it was not sufficient that he had reported all relevant matters to his line manager.