End of employment
In Cox v Sun Alliance Life Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that an employer was, through one of its employees, in breach of its duty to take reasonable care to provide an accurate and fair reference for a former employee, who resigned before the employer had completed pending disciplinary proceedings involving investigations into allegations of misconduct.
An employee who was summarily and wrongfully dismissed 12 days before his 55th birthday, albeit with 12 weeks' pay in lieu of notice, was in principle entitled to claim damages made up of the amount that he would have been paid but for the employer's repudiatory breach of his contract of employment, holds the Court of Appeal in Silvey v Pendragon plc.
There is no common law contractual remedy for financial or other loss allegedly flowing from the manner or circumstances of an employee's dismissal, holds the House of Lords in Johnson v Unisys Ltd.
In a case where misconduct is admitted by the employee, the requirement of reasonableness in s.98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 relates not only to the outcome in terms of the penalty imposed by the employer, but also to the process by which the employer arrived at that decision, holds the Court of Appeal in Whitbread plc (trading as Whitbread Medway Inns) v Hall.
Where a contract of employment provided that "the employer may make a payment in lieu of notice to the employee" and the employer chose to summarily dismiss the employee without cause or pay in lieu of notice, the employee's claim was for damages for wrongful dismissal, subject to his duty to mitigate his loss, and not for a sum due under the contract, holds the Court of Appeal, by a majority, in Cerberus Software Ltd v Rowley.
In Macfarlane and another v Glasgow City Council [2001] IRLR 7 EAT, the EAT held that, despite a clause in the worker's contract expressly entitling the worker to substitute a replacement to do the work if unable to attend work, the worker was deemed to be an employee rather than a sub-contractor.
In Baker v Securicor Omega Express Ltd [2000] IRLB 633 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employer had been in breach of contact in imposing a change from weekly to monthly pay, and the employee had been constructively dismissed. However, the dismissal was fair for some other substantial reason.
Both the "band or range of reasonable responses" approach to the issue of the reasonableness or unreasonableness of a dismissal and the tripartite "Burchell test" remain binding on the Court of Appeal, as well as on employment tribunals and the EAT, holds the Court of Appeal in Post Office v Foley and HSBC Bank plc (formerly Midland Bank plc) v Madden.
An employer that gave notice to terminate employees' existing contracts of employment, and offered to re-engage them on new terms, had a duty to consult employee representatives before imposing the new terms, holds the EAT in GMB v Man Truck & Bus UK Ltd.
In Scotch Premier Meat Ltd v Burns and others [2000] IRLR 639 EAT, the EAT held that an employment tribunal had not erred in holding that the employers were "proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees" within the meaning of s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, notwithstanding that, as an alternative option, they were considering selling the business as a going concern.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to the end of employment.