End of employment
Susannah Jarvis (associate) and Kate Williams (professional support lawyer), Addleshaw Goddard, analyse important recent rulings.
The Court of Appeal has held that an employee who was employed under a series of fixed-term contracts and whose contract was terminated could bring a claim of unfair dismissal despite the fact that he was employed to work outside Great Britain. Territorial limitations to unfair dismissal rights should be modified where necessary to enable a right emanating from European law to be enforced.
In Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld [2010] IRLR 38 EAT, the EAT held that the employment tribunal erred in deciding that a solicitor's letter amounted to a qualifying disclosure for the purposes of s.43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The letter merely stated the employee's position in an ongoing dispute, without alleging any facts.
In R (on the application of Age UK) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2009] EWHC 2336 HC, the High Court confirmed that the compulsory retirement of employees at or above the age of 65 by reference to the prescribed procedure in the age discrimination Regulations is lawful. However, the Court could not "see how 65 could remain" as the default retirement age, following the Government's review in 2010.
In Stuart Peters Ltd v Bell [2009] IRLR 941 CA, the Court of Appeal held that, in a case of constructive unfair dismissal, the Norton Tool principle that compensation for unfair dismissal without notice must include a sum representing the employee's full pay during his or her notice period does not apply, and the employee must give credit for any earnings during this period.
In Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Wooster EAT/0441/08, the EAT upheld a finding that the redundancy dismissal of a 49-year-old employee amounted to age discrimination. The tribunal was entitled to find that the employer could have found alternative work for him, but that it had failed to do so because it was concerned that, if he remained employed up to the age of 50, he would be entitled to a more generous early retirement package.
In Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK Ry and others v Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy [2009] IRLR 944 ECJ, the ECJ held that an employer's duty under the Collective Redundancies Directive to consult workers' representatives about the possibility of redundancies arises when strategic decisions or changes in activities make the employer contemplate or plan for collective redundancies.
In Tapere v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust EAT/0410/08, the EAT held that, in requiring a transferred employee to move to a location outside the scope of the mobility clause in her original contract of employment with the transferor, the transferee had acted in fundamental breach of contract. The employee's subsequent resignation therefore amounted to a constructive dismissal. Further, the transferee's attempt to move her place of work amounted to a substantial change in her working conditions to her material detriment. She was, therefore, also entitled to be treated as having been dismissed under reg.4(9) of the TUPE Regulations.
In Lomond Motors Ltd v Clark EATS/0019/09, the EAT held that an employment tribunal had erred in finding a dismissal unfair on the grounds that the redundancy selection pool had been incorrectly drawn. The tribunal had substituted its own view for that of a reasonable employer. The tribunal had further erred in its assessment of compensation.
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers unfair dismissal and pension loss.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to the end of employment.