End of employment
In Baddeley v Mehta t/a Supascoop, an industrial tribunal holds that a new right to claim unfair dismissal on grounds of health and safety does not apply to an employee who had resigned.
A woman whose absence resulting from IVF treatment was treated as part of her sickness record for redundancy purposes was unlawfully discriminated against on the grounds of sex, rules an Ashford industrial tribunal (Chair: G W Davies) in Robinson v London Borough of Greenwich.
It is a foreseeable consequence of discriminatory treatment that an employee will become upset and demotivated, holds a Birmingham industrial tribunal (Chair: A J McCarry) in Bains v Amber Leisure Ltd, finding that the dismissal of an ethnic minority employee for redundancy was unlawful discrimination even though he had requested it.
An employee who agreed to relocate but later decided not to move was not dismissed by reason of redundancy, but rather because of his intention not to comply with the relocation clause in his contract, holds the EAT in Richardson and another v Applied Imaging International Ltd.
A lavish and expensive customer connection which has been developed by an employee at his employer's expense is part of the latter's goodwill, and is something which it is entitled to protect, holds the High Court in Euro Brokers Ltd v Rabey.
In a number of recent cases, the EAT has considered the approach industrial tribunals should take when considering reducing unfair dismissal compensation on the grounds that the unfairness was due only to "procedural" failures.
Rejecting a s. 41 defence, a Bury St Edmunds industrial tribunal (Chair: J Barnes) in York v Olan Mills Incorporated rules that the dismissal of a US citizen working for a US company in the UK when she refused to relocate back to the USA was unlawful race discrimination. Finding that the employee was also unfairly dismissed, the tribunal awarded compensation totalling almost £22,000.
In Clifford v Devon County Council the EAT has ruled that public sector employees are eligible to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, by using EC law, even though they work less than eight hours per week.
In Duffy v Yeomans & Partners Ltd [1994] IRLR 642 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the Industrial Tribunal had not erred in holding that the employers' failure to consult the appellant employee before dismissing him on grounds of redundancy did not render the dismissal unfair in circumstances in which, on the facts known to the employers at the time the employee was dismissed, consultation would have served no useful purpose, even though the employers had not made a deliberate decision not to consult.
In Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd, the House of Lords ruled that a redundancy dismissal will usually be unfair if the employee was not warned or consulted prior to dismissal. But the Lords said there may be exceptions to this rule where the employer, at the time of dismissal, could reasonably take the view that consultation or warnings would be useless.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to the end of employment.