Dismissal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that, in the context of costs applications, it is unreasonable behaviour for a claimant to pursue an unfair dismissal claim purely for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that he or she was unfairly dismissed.
This case deals with a common issue in redundancy situations: the discounting of disability-related absences when scoring against a "sickness absence" criterion.
This case is a good example of a key issue in TUPE claims: whether or not an employee was assigned to the transferred undertaking.
If a redundant employee unreasonably rejects an offer of suitable alternative employment, he or she will not be entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. This case is a short and clear example of the factors that a tribunal will weigh up when determining this issue.
An employer's previous tolerance of misconduct can render a dismissal for that same misconduct unfair, as the employer in this case found to its cost.
A failure by an employer to give an employee correct duties can constitute a fundamental breach of contract, as this case demonstrates.
Niki Walker, managing associate at Addleshaw Goddard, details the latest rulings.
In Goode v Marks & Spencer plc EAT/0442/09, the EAT held that an employment tribunal was right to find that an employee had not been dismissed because of having made a protected disclosure. There had been no qualifying or protected disclosure, but merely an opinion expressed about the employer's proposal for changes to a discretionary enhanced redundancy scheme.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the date of a conditional resignation cannot constitute the effective date of termination regardless of any agreement between the employer and employee.
In Shanahan Engineering v Unite the Union EAT/0411/09, the EAT held that an employment tribunal was right to find that, in relation to collective redundancy consultation, although a customer's instruction amounted to "special circumstances", absolving the employer of the need to start consultation 30 days in advance of the first redundancy, it did not absolve it of all obligations to consult. However, the tribunal should have taken into account the special circumstances of the case in setting the level of the protective award.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to dismissal.