End of employment
The correct approach to cases of suspected misconduct in general - and suspected dishonesty in particular - was set out last year by the EAT in British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell.
In McNally v Welltrade International Ltd, T James and Well Trade Middle East Ltd [1978] IRLR 497 HC, the High Court held that a claim for damages can be brought under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 against an individual who negligently advises an applicant that he or she is suitable for a job vacancy.
In Sutton & Gates (Luton) Ltd v Boxall [1978] IRLR 486 EAT, the EAT held that the Industrial Tribunal had not erred in holding that the respondent employee's dismissal on grounds of lack of capability was unfair because he had not been given an opportunity to offer an explanation for his poor performance.
Generally, dismissal of an employee for a single act of misconduct where the offence in question is specified as one that will result in dismissal under the company's disciplinary rules and procedure, is likely to result in a finding of fair dismissal. But, as Laws Stores Ltd v Oliphant shows, this will not always be so.
In UBAF Bank Ltd v Davis [1978] IRLR 442 EAT, the EAT held that the employee was unfairly dismissed because he had never received a written warning of dismissal.
In The Bakers' Union v Clarks of Hove Ltd [1978] IRLR 366 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the EAT had incorrectly set aside the finding by the Industrial Tribunal that the employers' insolvency was not a special circumstance rendering it not reasonably practicable for them to comply with the redundancy consultation provisions of the Employment Protection Act, section 99.
In Transport & General Workers' Union v Nationwide Haulage Ltd [1978] IRLR 143 IT, the Industrial Tribunal held that the two sets of redundancies were not aggregated since there was no evidence that at the time of making the first set of redundancies there was an intention to follow them shortly with the second set.
In Tanner v DT Kean [1978] IRLR 110 EAT, the EAT held that an Industrial Tribunal was entitled to hold that in using the words "you're finished with me" to the appellant employee, the employer had merely spoken in annoyance and had not dismissed the employee.
In Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp, the Court of Appeal lays down the rule that in order to be able to resign and claim constructive dismissal within the meaning of para. 5(2)(c) of Schedule 1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, an employee must be able to show that the employer's conduct amounted to a significant breach of a fundamental term of the contract of employment or indicated that the employer no longer intended to be bound by the contract.
In Massey v Crown Life Insurance Co [1978] IRLR 31 CA, the Court of Appeal held that, whilst the parties to a contract cannot alter the truth of their relationship by putting a different label upon it, when it is ambiguous as to whether the employment is under a contract of employment or a contract for services, the terms of an agreement between the parties may be decisive as to what is the legal relationship.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to the end of employment.