End of employment
Continuing our series on the implications of recent significant cases, Hugh Calloway, associate solicitor in the commercial litigation department at Glanvilles Solicitors looks at issues surrounding some employment-related disputes. This week: drugs policies and misconduct.
Early retirement and enhanced benefits paid on dismissal for redundancy to employees who have reached a certain age are not "old-age, invalidity or survivors' benefits" within the meaning of article 3(4) of the EC Business Transfers Directive, even if those benefits were calculated by reference to the rules for calculating normal pension benefits, holds the European Court of Justice in Beckmann v Dynamco Whicheloe Macfarlane Ltd.
In MSF v Refuge Assurance plc and United Friendly Assurance, the EAT holds that the statutory duty under UK law to consult with employee representatives in relation to collective redundancies is triggered when there is an actual "proposal" to dismiss employees.
This week's case roundup from Eversheds, covering company car policy and sex discrimination.
In Parkins v Sodexho Ltd, the EAT holds that a protected disclosure for the purposes of s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996 can relate to a breach of the employee's own contract of employment.
In Legal & General Assurance Ltd v Kirk [2002] IRLR 124 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a case based on negligent misstatement must involve a statement, such as a reference, to a third party. It ruled that the duty to take reasonable care in preparing references does not extend to cover a situation in which no negligent reference has in fact been given.
This week's case roundup, covering unfair dismissal and redundancy procedures laid down in collective agreements.
The Court of Appeal gives important guidance on how far tribunals need to go in exploring the circumstances of a claim. Plus cases on protected disclosure, redundancy selection, discrimination by an agent, working time exemptions and constructive dismissal.
The Court of Appeal holds in Shawkat v Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust that an employment tribunal was entitled to its conclusion that a reorganisation of the employee's duties to require him to carry out different work in part of his time, while it amounted to the imposition of unreasonable duties upon him which he had reasonably declined to carry out, did not mean that he was redundant.
In Middlesbrough Borough Council v Transport and General Workers' Union and another, the EAT upholds an employment tribunal's finding of fact that an employer failed to consult representatives of two trade unions that it recognised, in respect of more than 100 employees whom it was proposing to make redundant within 90 days, about ways of avoiding the dismissals.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to the end of employment.