End of employment
In Delabole Slate Ltd v Berriman the Court of Appeal upholds the EAT's decision that a dismissal which occurs as a consequence of a change in terms of employment following the transfer of an undertaking is not a dismissal for "an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce", and so is automatically unfair under reg.8(1) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.
In Birch and Humber v University of Liverpool the Court of Appeal upholds a tribunal's finding that the termination of employment which resulted from the employees' offer to retire early and the employer's acceptance of that offer was not a dismissal but a termination by mutual agreement; so, there having been no dismissal, the employees were not entitled to a redundancy payment.
The EAT can overturn industrial tribunal decisions on the ground either that there has been an error of law, or that the decision was perverse. In Dobie v Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that these are alternative not cumulative reasons for allowing an appeal.
The Court of Appeal has established that if words of dismissal or resignation are unambiguous, they cannot be overridden by appeals to what a reasonable employee or employer might have taken them to mean. J & J Stern v Simpson the EAT holds that that does not mean that the words must initially be viewed in isolation, but that the surrounding circumstances are relevant to whether the words used are ambiguous.
Whether or not words of dismissal uttered in the heat of the moment can be retracted quickly has in the past been left undecided by the Court of Appeal and the EAT. In Martin v Yeomen Aggregates Ltd the EAT, in a rather unsatisfactory judgment, appears to hold that immediate retraction of a summary dismissal is possible in law.
In Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones the EAT has reviewed the decisions on the test of reasonableness as required by s.57(3) of the EP(C)A. They stress the importance of considering the range of reasonable responses and warn against the test which states that a dismissal is unfair only if no sensible or reasonable employer could have arrived at that decision, as this approach could result in a misunderstanding of the law.
In Tayside Regional Council v McIntosh [1982] IRLR 272 EAT, the EAT held that a requirement for "qualifications" need not be expressly stated in a contract of employment, as it may be inferred from the job advertisement or from the nature of the job.
In Evans v Elemeta Holdings Ltd [1982] IRLR 143 EAT, the EAT emphasises that whether it is reasonable to dismiss an employee for refusing to accept a change in contractual terms depends upon whether it was reasonable for the employee to decline the terms. If it was reasonable for the employee to decline those terms, then it is unreasonable for the employer to dismiss the employee for such refusal.
In Ross v Delrosa Caterers Ltd [1981] ICR 393 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that, although continuity of employment is broken where a redundancy payment has been paid to an employee and the contract of employment is renewed or the employee re-engaged under a new contract, this is the case only if the redundancy payment is a statutory redundancy payment.
In Sothern v Franks Charlesly & Co [1981] IRLR 278 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the words "I am resigning" are not ambiguous, so that a reasonable employer would not have interpreted the words when used by the respondent employee as a resignation in the circumstances of the present case.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to the end of employment.