End of employment
In Inco Alloys Ltd v Kelly the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's decision that the dismissal of an employee, because he twice attended evening Territorial Army training sessions having been off work the same day because of sickness or injury, was unfair.
An employee was fairly dismissed when he lost his driving licence, holds the EAT in John Liddington Ltd v Blackett, given that his job involved substantial travelling and the employer had concluded, after careful consideration of alternative arrangements, that the job could not be done properly without a car.
An employer giving a reference is under a duty to the subject of the reference to take reasonable care in compiling it, or in obtaining the information on which it is based, holds the House of Lords in Spring v Guardian Assurance plc and others.
The time limit for bringing a complaint against a public sector employer in respect of discriminatory retirement did not begin to run until the date the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay (Remedies) Regulations 1993 came into force, rules a Southampton industrial tribunal (Chair: I T Soulsby) in Wild v Portsmouth & SE Hants Health Authority.
In Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (14 July 1994) EOR57A, the European Court of Justice rules that it is contrary to the Equal Treatment Directive to dismiss a woman employed for an unlimited term who, shortly after her recruitment is found to be pregnant, notwithstanding that she was recruited initially to replace another employee during the latter's maternity leave.
An industrial tribunal's decision that a painter was unfairly dismissed for using company materials to paint guttering at a house not included in the works contract was flawed, holds the Court of Session in McGuire v Brawley Brothers Ltd.
An employee who resigned when her employer threatened to terminate her contract with due notice if she refused to agree to a change in her shift pattern was constructively dismissed, rules the EAT in Greenaway Harrison Ltd v Wiles.
An industrial tribunal's decision that an employee could reasonably refuse a proposed detrimental variation in contractual terms because it was not based on sound business reasons vital for the company's survival was wrong, holds the EAT in Catamaran Cruisers Ltd v Williams and others.
In Hellyer Brothers Ltd v Atkinson and Dickinson [1994] IRLR 88 CA, the Court of Appeal held that, because of the peculiarities of the crew agreement system, the employees could not claim redundancy payments because of gaps in their continuous employment.
When deciding whether to order the re-employment of an unfairly dismissed employee, an industrial tribunal only has to make a "provisional" determination or assessment on the practicability of the employer complying with such an order, holds the Court of Appeal in Port of London Authority v Payne and others.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to the end of employment.