End of employment
In Bolton School v Evans [2007] IRLR 140 CA, the Court of Appeal has held that protection against a detriment for making a protected disclosure does not extend to dismissal for conduct that is designed to demonstrate that the belief in the wrongdoing is reasonable.
In Adeneler and others v Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos [2006] IRLR 716 the European Court of Justice has held that the objective reasons justifying the use of successive fixed-term contracts must relate to the particular employment in question.
In McCormack v Sanmina SCI UK Ltd [2006] All ER (D) 138 (Jul) EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that redundancy dismissals that were procedurally unfair due to a lack of proper consultation were also unfair because of the employer's inconsistent approach to the assessment of willingness to work overtime and employees' skills range.
In Lawson v Serco Ltd; Botham v Ministry of Defence; Crofts and others v Veta Ltd and others [2006] IRLR 289 HL, the House of Lords holds that employees will be entitled to claim unfair dismissal if working or based in Great Britain at the time of the dismissal. An employee posted abroad but retaining a strong connection with Great Britain may also be able to bring a claim.
In Alexander and another v Bridgen Enterprises Ltd [2006] IRLR 422 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that two employees were automatically unfairly dismissed in breach of the statutory dismissal procedure because the employer had not provided sufficient information about their selection for redundancy in advance of the dismissal meeting.
In Leicestershire County Council v Unison [2006] IRLR 810 CA, the Court of Appeal holds that a tribunal was entitled to make the maximum protective award in respect of a group of employees who had been dismissed and offered new terms without consultation with the relevant unions.
In Willow Oak Developments Ltd t/a Windsor Recruitment v Silverwood and others [2006] IRLR 607 CA, the Court of Appeal holds that a refusal to sign post-employment restrictive covenants can amount to a potentially fair reason for dismissal. However, the tribunal was entitled to find that the way in which the employer had sought to impose the change was procedurally unfair.
In McLean v Rainbow Homeloans Ltd [2007] IRLR 14 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that an employee was unfairly dismissed for asserting a statutory right when he refused to work extra hours that would have been a breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
In ABC News Intercontinental Inc v Gizbert EAT/0160/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that there was sufficient mutuality of obligation for a contract of employment to exist where an individual had an implied duty to consider in good faith whether to accept or refuse work.
In Vauxhall Motors Ltd v Transport and General Workers Union EAT/0657/05, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that where an employer commences consultation in compliance with the statutory requirements, but no redundancies take place until a much later date, no fresh compliance will be required if meaningful consultation has continued during the interim period.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to the end of employment.