A family-run business made the classic mistake of having one person act as "judge, jury and executioner" in a disciplinary procedure against an employee accused of misconduct.
In Kraft Foods UK Ltd v Hastie EAT/0024/10, the EAT held that a contractual redundancy scheme that capped payments at the total amount of earnings that the employee would have received prior to retirement was justified as a proportionate means of preventing redundant employees from receiving a windfall.
In this case, the employment tribunal found that an employee who breached her employer's inducements, gifts and favours policy was fairly dismissed. The case is a good example of circumstances that might be covered by the Bribery Act 2010 when it comes into force in April 2011.
This case serves as a warning to employers always to calculate redundancy selection scores carefully, as mistakes can render a dismissal unfair even if they are identified only after the employee's appeal.
A dismissal where the reason (or the principal reason) is an employee's jury service will be automatically unfair, regardless of the employee's length of service, as this case demonstrates.