An industrial tribunal was entitled to find that an employee objected to transferring to a new employer and informed his employer of that objection, holds the EAT in Hay v George Hanson (Building Contractors) Ltd.
In Quinn and others v Calder Industrial Materials Ltd the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's ruling that the employer was not in breach of contract by failing to make enhanced redundancy payments to redundant employees.
An employee was fairly dismissed for misconduct even though another employee who was guilty of the same conduct was treated differently and given a final written warning, holds the EAT in London Borough of Harrow v Cunningham.
An "establishment" for the purposes of the EC Collective Redundancies Directive means the unit to which the workers made redundant are assigned to carry out their duties, rules the ECJ in Rockfon A/S v Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark.
In Steelprint Ltd v Haynes EAT/467/95, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the dismissal of an employee after the employer had restructured her job but failed to provide training in the new skills required was unfair.
In Bass Taverns Ltd v Burgess, the Court of Appeal holds that a shop steward who resigned after he was demoted for making disparaging remarks about the employer to trainee managers was unfairly constructively dismissed for taking part in trade union activities at an appropriate time.
An employer's decision to dismiss three employees who became drunk, abusive and violent after a seminar aimed at improving their "behavioural skills" was manifestly reasonable, holds the EAT in Whitbread Beer Company v Williams and others.
In British Aerospace plc v Green, the Court of Appeal considers the guiding principles for ordering discovery of marked assessment forms in cases where redundant employees claim that they were unfairly selected.
An industrial tribunal was not entitled to find that allegedly inconsistent treatment of employees rendered a dismissal for misconduct unfair, holds the Court of Appeal in Paul v East Surrey District Health Authority.
An employer is entitled to expect that an employee will not compete with it for contracts with existing customers, holds the EAT in Adamson v B&L Cleaning Services Ltd.