End of employment
The Court of Appeal's decision in Alidair Ltd v Taylor is authority for the proposition that there are circumstances in which an employee's incompetence can be so great that it is unnecessary to give him an opportunity to improve. The effect of the Court of Appeal's more recent decision in Inner London Education Authority v Lloyd, however, is to limit the application of the Alidair case. Rejecting an analogy of the case of Mr Lloyd, a probationary teacher, to that of Mr Taylor, an airline pilot, the Appeal Court points out that in Alidair the safety of a large number of people was involved.
In Rowan v Machinery Installations (South Wales) Ltd [1981] IRLR 122 EAT, the EAT held that the Industrial Tribunal had erred in finding that the appellant's period of continuous employment had been broken when his contract of employment had been terminated by the respondents and he was paid an amount calculated in accordance with the statutory redundancy payment provisions, in circumstances in which there was no liability on the respondents to make a redundancy payment.
In Gardiner v London Borough of Merton [1980] IRLR 472 CA, the Court of Appeal held that where an individual leaves the employ of one authority and joins another he or she will lose all rights of continuity of employment except for those that may be provided for under the Redundancy Payments (Continuity of Employment etc) (Modification) Order 1999.
In Monie v Coral Racing Ltd [1980] IRLR 464 CA, the Court of Appeal held that where an employer reasonably believes that one of two, or possibly both, employees are involved in dishonesty, but it is impossible for it to determine which of them is guilty, it may be reasonable to dismiss both of them, as long as the employer acts reasonably in all the circumstances of the case.
Where an employee is absent from work for a substantial period of time through illness it is well established that employers must take proper steps to ascertain the true medical position and, once this has been done, to consult with the employee before deciding whether or not to dismiss. However, as the EAT has recently emphasised in International Sports Co Ltd v Thomson and Rolls-Royce Ltd v Walpole, these principles are inappropriate where the employee is frequently absent as a result of unconnected minor ailments.
In Genower v Ealing, Hammersmith & Hounslow Area Health Authority [1980] IRLR 297 EAT, the EAT held that the attempt by the respondent employers to change the appellant's job duties and place of work following a reorganisation, albeit a breach of contract which justified him in resigning and claiming that he had been dismissed within the meaning of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act, section 55(2)(c), was a dismissal for some other substantial reason and was reasonable in all the circumstances.
In Savage v J Sainsbury Ltd [1980] IRLR 109 CA, the Court of Appeal held that where a disciplinary procedure provides a right of appeal against dismissal and treats the employee as suspended without pay until the appeal is heard, the effective date of termination if the appeal is rejected is when the dismissal initially took effect and not when the appeal was rejected.
In Ford v Milthorn Toleman Ltd [1980] IRLR 30 CA, the Court of Appeal upheld the EAT's finding that an employee was entitled to claim constructive dismissal when, upon receiving his notice that he was to join a competitor, his employers removed his duties as a sales manager and proposed to change the basis of his remuneration.
The Court of Appeal held, in Hollister v National Farmers' Union, that Mr Hollister's dismissal for refusing to accept the terms of a re-organisation amounted to some other substantial reason for dismissal. And in Banerjee v City & East London AHA, the EAT overturned an Industrial Tribunal's decision that Mr Banerjee's dismissal from his post of part-time consultant surgeon following a decision to replace part-timers with full-timers was for some other substantial reason.
In Ladbroke Racing Ltd v Arnott and others [1979] IRLR 192 EAT, the EAT held that the Industrial Tribunal was entitled to find that the respondent betting shop employees had been unfairly dismissed on grounds of placing bets on behalf of outside persons or condoning such bets, notwithstanding that the appellants' disciplinary rules specified that such conduct would result in immediate dismissal.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to the end of employment.