Dismissal
The Court of Appeal gives important guidance on how far tribunals need to go in exploring the circumstances of a claim. Plus cases on protected disclosure, redundancy selection, discrimination by an agent, working time exemptions and constructive dismissal.
The Court of Appeal holds in Shawkat v Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust that an employment tribunal was entitled to its conclusion that a reorganisation of the employee's duties to require him to carry out different work in part of his time, while it amounted to the imposition of unreasonable duties upon him which he had reasonably declined to carry out, did not mean that he was redundant.
In Middlesbrough Borough Council v Transport and General Workers' Union and another, the EAT upholds an employment tribunal's finding of fact that an employer failed to consult representatives of two trade unions that it recognised, in respect of more than 100 employees whom it was proposing to make redundant within 90 days, about ways of avoiding the dismissals.
An employee who was summarily and wrongfully dismissed 12 days before his 55th birthday, albeit with 12 weeks' pay in lieu of notice, was in principle entitled to claim damages made up of the amount that he would have been paid but for the employer's repudiatory breach of his contract of employment, holds the Court of Appeal in Silvey v Pendragon plc.
There is no common law contractual remedy for financial or other loss allegedly flowing from the manner or circumstances of an employee's dismissal, holds the House of Lords in Johnson v Unisys Ltd.
In a case where misconduct is admitted by the employee, the requirement of reasonableness in s.98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 relates not only to the outcome in terms of the penalty imposed by the employer, but also to the process by which the employer arrived at that decision, holds the Court of Appeal in Whitbread plc (trading as Whitbread Medway Inns) v Hall.
In Macfarlane and another v Glasgow City Council [2001] IRLR 7 EAT, the EAT held that, despite a clause in the worker's contract expressly entitling the worker to substitute a replacement to do the work if unable to attend work, the worker was deemed to be an employee rather than a sub-contractor.
In Baker v Securicor Omega Express Ltd [2000] IRLB 633 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employer had been in breach of contact in imposing a change from weekly to monthly pay, and the employee had been constructively dismissed. However, the dismissal was fair for some other substantial reason.
Both the "band or range of reasonable responses" approach to the issue of the reasonableness or unreasonableness of a dismissal and the tripartite "Burchell test" remain binding on the Court of Appeal, as well as on employment tribunals and the EAT, holds the Court of Appeal in Post Office v Foley and HSBC Bank plc (formerly Midland Bank plc) v Madden.
An employer that gave notice to terminate employees' existing contracts of employment, and offered to re-engage them on new terms, had a duty to consult employee representatives before imposing the new terms, holds the EAT in GMB v Man Truck & Bus UK Ltd.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to dismissal.