Dismissal
The EAT in Greenwood v Whiteghyll Plastics Ltd EAT/0219/07 held that, although third-party pressure can constitute "some other substantial reason" justifying dismissal, when dismissing an employee in response to complaints from a major client, the employer was not entitled to disregard the issue of injustice caused to the employee.
In Vernon v Event Management Catering Ltd EAT/0161/07 the EAT held that a casual worker who, with the exception of a single two-week break to take a holiday, worked every week for more than three years was an employee and had sufficient continuity of service to claim unfair dismissal. He could demonstrate the existence of a contract of employment in each week during the relevant period and the period of holiday did not break his continuity of employment.
In Optare Group Ltd v Transport and General Workers Union EAT/0143/07 the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a tribunal was right to hold that voluntary redundancies counted towards the total number of proposed redundancy dismissals at an establishment, which in this case was sufficient to trigger the statutory collective consultation requirements.
Judith Harris, professional support lawyer at Addleshaw Goddard, outlines the latest legal rulings.
In Sandhu v Jan de Rijk Transport Ltd [2007] IRLR 519 CA the Court of Appeal held that when an employee negotiated severance terms and resigned during a meeting called without advance warning to effect his dismissal in circumstances where he had no time to reflect or seek advice, the only conclusion open to the tribunal as a matter of law was that he had been dismissed.
In Millam v The Print Factory (London) 1991 Ltd [2007] IRLR 526 CA, the Court of Appeal held that where the operation - as opposed to the ownership of a business - transferred to a new owner, TUPE applied notwithstanding that the business was acquired on a sale of shares.
In Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews and others EAT/0533/06 the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that where a procedurally unfair dismissal has not been rendered fair by the operation of s.98A(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal must nevertheless consider if there is evidence to suggest that a fair procedure might have led to dismissal, thereby justifying a percentage reduction in compensation under Polkey.
In Airbus UK v Webb EAT/0453/06 the EAT has held that where an employee was dismissed for gross misconduct, but would not have been dismissed but for the fact that he had an expired final written warning on his record, the dismissal was unfair. The result of the expiry of the warning was that he was entitled to be treated as though he had no disciplinary record at all.
In Babula v Waltham Forest College [2007] IRLR 346 the Court of Appeal held that to qualify for protection from detriment or dismissal for whistleblowing, a worker must hold a "reasonable belief" that the information disclosed tends to show that a criminal offence will be committed or that there will be non-compliance with a legal obligation.
In Transport & General Workers' Union v Brauer Coley Ltd (in administration) [2007] IRLR 207 EAT the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that where a trade union is successful in proceedings brought for failure to consult on collective redundancies, the protective award cannot be claimed by any employees in respect of whom the trade union was not recognised by the employer.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to dismissal.