Dismissal
In Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt, the Court of Appeal emphasises that the "band of reasonable responses" test applies to the question of the reasonableness of an employer's investigations into alleged misconduct, as it does to other procedural and substantive aspects of the decision to dismiss.
In Albion Automotive Ltd v Walker and others, the Court of Appeal upholds an employment tribunal's decision that an employer who made enhanced redundancy payments according to an agreed policy for a number of years created a custom and practice from which the tribunal could infer that the employer and/or its successors intended to be contractually bound to make those payments.
Where, in a protected disclosure case, the employee had not served the requisite qualifying period to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, the critical issue for the tribunal is whether or not the protected disclosure provisions in the Employment Rights Act 1996 have been satisfied on the evidence, and not substantive or procedural unfairness, which would have been the central issue in a claim for "ordinary" unfair dismissal, the Court of Appeal holds in ALM Medical Services Ltd v Bladon.
In Ngengfack v London Borough of Southwark [2002] EWCA Civ 711 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employee who had been seen working in the hairdressing salon that she owned while on sick leave from her teaching job had been fairly dismissed.
In Wilding v British Telecommunications plc, the Court of Appeal upholds a decision by an employment tribunal that, by refusing an offer of part-time re-employment, an employee who had been unfairly dismissed and discriminated against on the ground of his disability had thereby failed to mitigate his loss.
Continuing our series on the implications of recent significant cases, Hugh Calloway, associate solicitor in the commercial litigation department at Glanvilles Solicitors looks at issues surrounding some employment-related disputes. This week: drugs policies and misconduct.
Early retirement and enhanced benefits paid on dismissal for redundancy to employees who have reached a certain age are not "old-age, invalidity or survivors' benefits" within the meaning of article 3(4) of the EC Business Transfers Directive, even if those benefits were calculated by reference to the rules for calculating normal pension benefits, holds the European Court of Justice in Beckmann v Dynamco Whicheloe Macfarlane Ltd.
In MSF v Refuge Assurance plc and United Friendly Assurance, the EAT holds that the statutory duty under UK law to consult with employee representatives in relation to collective redundancies is triggered when there is an actual "proposal" to dismiss employees.
In Parkins v Sodexho Ltd, the EAT holds that a protected disclosure for the purposes of s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996 can relate to a breach of the employee's own contract of employment.
This week's case roundup, covering unfair dismissal and redundancy procedures laid down in collective agreements.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to dismissal.