End of employment
In Shanahan Engineering v Unite the Union EAT/0411/09, the EAT held that an employment tribunal was right to find that, in relation to collective redundancy consultation, although a customer's instruction amounted to "special circumstances", absolving the employer of the need to start consultation 30 days in advance of the first redundancy, it did not absolve it of all obligations to consult. However, the tribunal should have taken into account the special circumstances of the case in setting the level of the protective award.
Helen Samuel, associate solicitor and Anna Bridges, associate solicitor, at Addleshaw Goddard, detail the latest rulings.
In City of Edinburgh Council v Dickson EATS/0038/09, the EAT upheld the employment tribunal's decision that an employee whose employer failed properly to consider his explanation that he had behaved out of character during a hypoglycaemic episode was unfairly dismissed. However, the tribunal's conclusion that the employer's rejection of that explanation amounted to direct and disability-related discrimination was wrong in law and was overturned.
In Sarkar v West London Mental Health NHS Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 289 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employment tribunal was entitled to find that the employer had acted outside the range of reasonable responses when it summarily dismissed an employee for gross misconduct after initial agreement that the allegations against him would be dealt with under an informal procedure that was appropriate for relatively minor misconduct and could not lead to dismissal.
In Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG [2010] IRLR 346 ECJ, the ECJ held that German law that excludes employment below the age of 25 when calculating minimum statutory notice periods based on length of service amounts to unjustified age discrimination contrary to the Equal Treatment Framework Directive.
In Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation [2010] EWCA Civ 121 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the "range of reasonable responses" test has no place in a tribunal's determination of whether or not there was a repudiatory breach of contract by the employer and constructive dismissal. It also held that such a breach cannot be "cured", so as to prevent the innocent party accepting the breach.
Richard Ryan, associate, Helen Ward, associate, and Tori O'Neil, trainee solicitor, Addleshaw Goddard, detail the latest rulings.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that it will only rarely be unfair for an employer to proceed with a disciplinary hearing prior to holding a related grievance appeal hearing.
In Lyons v Mitie Security Ltd EAT/0081/09, the EAT held that, in principle, the ability to take annual leave is not inalienable and can be lost if the worker does not comply with the notice requirements imposed by the Working Time Regulations 1998 and/or the worker's contract. However, the tribunal had erred in failing to analyse properly whether or not the particular notice requirements of the claimant's contract had been complied with, before deciding to dismiss his constructive dismissal and holiday pay claims.
In this case, an employee was fairly dismissed for disclosing details of job applicant.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to the end of employment.