End of employment
In Mennell v Newell & Wright (Transport Contractors) Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that an employee may have the right not to be unfairly dismissed for asserting a relevant statutory right even though the employer has not actually infringed that right.
Where a safety representative claims that he or she was subjected to a detriment for performing functions as an acknowledged health and safety representative, it is no defence for the employer to argue that the representative intended to embarrass the company in front of the external safety authorities or performed those functions in an unreasonable way unacceptable to the employer, holds the EAT in Shillito v Van Leer (UK) Ltd.
The question of where an employee was employed for the purposes of the statutory definition of redundancy is to be answered primarily by a consideration of the factual circumstances which obtained until the dismissal, holds the Court of Appeal in High Table Ltd v Horst and others.
In Jones v F Sirl & Son (Furnishers) Ltd [1997] IRLR 493 EAT, the EAT held that in deciding whether an employee left employment in consequence of a fundamental breach of contract by the employer, the industrial tribunal must determine whether the repudiatory breach was "the effective cause" of the resignation. It does not have to be the sole cause.
In Sarker v South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust the EAT holds that an industrial tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a breach of contract claim brought by an employee whose contract of employment was terminated by the employer before the date on which she was due to start work.
In deciding the fairness of a redundancy selection criterion based on employees' absence records, an industrial tribunal may consider whether the employer took account of the reasons for a particular employee's absence only as one of the factors to be considered in the circumstances of the case, and not as the conclusive factor, the EAT holds in Byrne v Castrol (UK) Ltd.
In Mugford v Midland Bank plc, the EAT reviews the current situation regarding redundancy consultation in the context of unfair dismissal, observing that consultation with the trade union over selection criteria does not of itself obviate the need for individual consultation.
In R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Seymour-Smith and Perez (13 March 1997) EOR73A, the House of Lords refers questions to the European Court of Justice relating to whether the increase in the qualifying period for bringing a complaint of unfair dismissal from one to two years indirectly discriminated against women contrary to European Community law.
In Safeway Stores plc v Burrell, the EAT rejects both the "contract test" and the "function test" for determining whether an employee was dismissed by reason of redundancy.
In Digital Equipment Co Ltd v Clements (No.2), the EAT holds that, in calculating the compensatory award for unfair dismissal, any termination payment the employee received from the employer should be deducted from his or her loss caused by the dismissal before reducing that net loss by the percentage chance, if any, that he or she would have been retained had the employer acted fairly.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to the end of employment.