End of employment
In Soteriou v Ultrachem Ltd and others [2004] IRLR 870 HC, the High Court held that the EAT had not erred in striking out the applicant's claim for wrongful dismissal on the basis that an employment tribunal had already determined on a claim for unfair dismissal that the applicant's contract of employment was unenforceable due to illegality and that, since the claim for wrongful dismissal involved the same contract, the EAT was bound by that finding.
This week's case law round-up from Eversheds, covering pregnancy-related dismissals and transfers not covered by TUPE Regulations.
In Eastwood and another v Magnox Electric plc; McCabe v Cornwall County Council and others, the House of Lords holds that, in cases where psychiatric injury is alleged to have been caused by acts of the employer committed prior to, and separately from the act of dismissal itself, a cause of action will exist at common law for damages.
In Dunnachie v Kingston-upon-Hull City Council, the House of Lords holds that Lord Hoffman's comments in Johnson were obiter and, therefore, did not prevent the House of Lords from finding that unfair dismissal compensation should be restricted to economic losses only.
In Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers' Centre, the Court of Appeal holds that an employment tribunal had been correct to find that an employee's "whistleblowing" disclosure was not made in good faith because, although she believed her allegations to be true and did not make the disclosure for personal gain, her motivation for making it was personal antagonism towards the subject of the disclosure.
In Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle [2004] IRLR 703 CA, the Court of Appeal held that putting an employee who was off sick for a disability-related reason on to half pay after a period of full pay was unjustified less favourable treatment where the employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments, which, had they been made, would have resulted in the employee's returning to work before she became liable to have her sick pay reduced.
In Hardy v Polk (Leeds) Ltd [2004] IRLR 420 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an employee who is dismissed without notice or pay in lieu of notice is under a duty to mitigate his or her loss in respect of the notice period, and that earnings received from another employer during the (nominal) notice period must be offset against the compensatory award.
In Susie Radin v GMB and others [2004] IRLR 400 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the employment tribunal had not erred in making a protective award for the maximum period of 90 days in respect of the employers' failure to consult with the union over a proposal to close a factory and dismiss all employees as redundant, notwithstanding the tribunal's finding in relation to the employees' claims of unfair dismissal that, in those circumstances, consultation would have been futile.
In Harper v Virgin Net Ltd the Court of Appeal holds under s.97(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, where an employee is summarily dismissed, that employee's effective date of termination ("EDT") is only extended to the end of the statutory notice period to which he or she would have been entitled, and not to the end of their contractual notice period.
In Crossley v Faithful & Gould Holdings Ltd the Court of Appeal holds that there is no implied contractual obligation for an employer to take reasonable care for its employees' economic wellbeing.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to the end of employment.