End of employment
In Regent Security Services Ltd v Power [2007] EWCA Civ 1188 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employee transferred under the 1981 TUPE Regulations could choose to enforce new, more beneficial terms agreed with the transferee, even where the variation was connected with the transfer.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that, in the circumstances of the case, the issue of disparate treatment did not arise when an employee was dismissed but another was not disciplined.
In Jackson v Computershare Investor Services plc [2007] EWCA Civ 1065, the Court of Appeal ruled that the provision in the TUPE Regulations to the effect that a transferred contract of employment will have effect after the transfer as if originally made between the employee and the transferee could not be construed so as to give the employee a contractual benefit to which she had not been entitled under her original contract.
A review of a number of recent employment tribunal decisions suggests that some employers remain unaware of the implications of, or are struggling with, the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1031), which became law on 1 October 2006. The decisions also demonstrate the approach that the tribunals might take to the question of justification of discrimination and to the assessment of injury to feelings compensation.
In Corus UK Ltd v Mainwaring EAT/0053/07, the EAT held that an employer did not act unreasonably when it failed to interview an informant who alleged that a fellow employee was malingering, as that allegation merely triggered a fair investigation. In addition, it was not necessary for the employer to seek medical evidence from a specialist consultant, it being reasonable for it to rely on evidence about the employee's medical condition from a GP.
In UK Coal Mining Ltd v (1) National Union of Mineworkers (Northumberland Area) (2) The British Association of Colliery Management EAT/0397/06 & EAT/0141/07, the EAT held that the duty to consult about ways of "avoiding" redundancies inevitably involves consultation about the reasons behind the proposed dismissals and, contrary to previous authority, is not limited to consultation about how the redundancies are to be effected.
The High Court has held that an employee's resignation two days after he had been informed that he was being transferred was a valid objection to the transfer.
In McAdie v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2007] IRLR 895, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the fact that an employee's stress-related illness was caused by the employer was no bar in law to a fair dismissal on the grounds of capability.
The EAT in Greenwood v Whiteghyll Plastics Ltd EAT/0219/07 held that, although third-party pressure can constitute "some other substantial reason" justifying dismissal, when dismissing an employee in response to complaints from a major client, the employer was not entitled to disregard the issue of injustice caused to the employee.
In Félix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA Case C-411/05, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has given its judgment that the Equal Treatment Directive (2000/78/EC) does not preclude a Spanish law permitting clauses in collective agreements that allow employees to be compulsorily retired when they reach a specified age.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to the end of employment.