Dismissal
This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering: constructive dismissal compensation; and injury to feelings awards.
In Diosynth Ltd v Thomson [2006] IRLR 284 CS, the Court of Session has made it clear that an employer is not entitled to take into account expired disciplinary warnings in making disciplinary decisions in respect of employees
In Cable & Wireless plc v Muscat, the Court of Appeal holds that the guidance in Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd is correct, and that tribunals should consider the possibility of an implied employment contract between the worker and end user where there is a triangular worker/agency/end-user arrangement.
The Court of Appeal has handed down an important decision emphasising the wide discretion that an employment tribunal has to make a 'Polkey reduction' - a ruling that dismissal would have occurred, or would probably have occurred even if a fair procedure or proper investigation had been followed - in an unfair dismissal case.
In Melia v Magna Kansei Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that where an employee has been subjected to detriment for having made a protected disclosure and then resigned claiming constructive dismissal, compensation for injured feelings should be assessed over the entire period up to the date of termination.
Sophy Robinson and Karen Fletcher of Addleshaw Goddard outline the latest legal rulings and explain what you need to know to avoid tribunals.
In Gover and others v Propertycare Ltd, the EAT holds that, in an unfair dismissal case, a Polkey reduction may be applied to the compensatory award if the employment tribunal can sensibly reconstruct the world as it would have been had the unfairness not occurred, and forms a view that the employee would have been dismissed in any case.
In Arriva North West & Wales v Colebourn, the EAT holds that the employment tribunal erred in excluding additional evidence that was adduced at a second internal appeal on the grounds that it could be taken into account only if there was a complete re-hearing.
In Amicus v Nissan Motor Manufacturing (UK) Ltd, the EAT holds that the tribunal was correct to find that consultation by an employer proposing to relocate 62 employees took place "in good time", despite the fact that the employer failed to consult the union until three weeks before the affected employees had to indicate their willingness to be relocated.
In Land Securities Trilium Ltd v Thornley, the EAT holds that, when deciding whether there has been a change in job duties, the tribunal may look not only at how the duties were described in the employee's original job description, but also at the actual work she had been given.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to dismissal.