Dismissal
In deciding the fairness of a redundancy selection criterion based on employees' absence records, an industrial tribunal may consider whether the employer took account of the reasons for a particular employee's absence only as one of the factors to be considered in the circumstances of the case, and not as the conclusive factor, the EAT holds in Byrne v Castrol (UK) Ltd.
In Mugford v Midland Bank plc, the EAT reviews the current situation regarding redundancy consultation in the context of unfair dismissal, observing that consultation with the trade union over selection criteria does not of itself obviate the need for individual consultation.
In R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Seymour-Smith and Perez (13 March 1997) EOR73A, the House of Lords refers questions to the European Court of Justice relating to whether the increase in the qualifying period for bringing a complaint of unfair dismissal from one to two years indirectly discriminated against women contrary to European Community law.
In Safeway Stores plc v Burrell, the EAT rejects both the "contract test" and the "function test" for determining whether an employee was dismissed by reason of redundancy.
In Digital Equipment Co Ltd v Clements (No.2), the EAT holds that, in calculating the compensatory award for unfair dismissal, any termination payment the employee received from the employer should be deducted from his or her loss caused by the dismissal before reducing that net loss by the percentage chance, if any, that he or she would have been retained had the employer acted fairly.
An assessment system under which employees were selected for redundancy without individual consultation on the basis of undisclosed marks awarded by their employer gave employees no meaningful opportunity to challenge the decisions made, holds the EAT in John Brown Engineering Ltd v Brown and others.
An employee who was dismissed without notice in breach of his contract of employment was released from the further performance of that contract and so was not bound by his contractual obligation to repay relocation expenses received from his employer, holds the EAT in Pearce v Roy T Ward (Consultants) Ltd.
The service contract of a company chief executive imposed a contractual obligation on his employer to review and provide an annual upward adjustment in salary, holds the High Court in Clark v BET plc and another.
In Williams and others v Whitbread Beer Co the Court of Appeal restores the decision of an industrial tribunal that an employer unfairly dismissed three employees for drunken, abusive and violent behaviour in circumstances where the misconduct took place outside work and where it was the employer who had provided the opportunity for the employees to drink.
In Selkent Bus Co Ltd t/a Stagecoach Selkent v Moore [1996] IRLR 661 EAT, the EAT set out guidance to industrial tribunals on the criteria to take into account in deciding whether to grant leave for amendment of an originating application.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to dismissal.