Employment law cases

All items: Dismissal

  • Redundancy: Relevance of "Compair Maxam guidelines"

    Date:
    1 November 1996

    In Akzo Coatings plc v Thompson and others, the EAT holds that an industrial tribunal erred in law in applying the guidelines on redundancy selection in Williams and others v Compair Maxam Ltd to the way in which an employer dealt with the possibility of alternative employment for redundant employees.

  • Dismissal: Imposition of new terms amounted to express dismissal

    Date:
    1 August 1996

    The unilateral imposition of a continuous rolling shift pattern in place of the traditional shifts previously worked by employees in accordance with their contracts amounted to an express dismissal of those employees, who reserved their right to complain of unfair dismissal even though they worked under the new system, holds the EAT in Alcan Extrusions v Yates and others.

  • Transfer of undertakings: Employee's objection to transfer meant no dismissal

    Date:
    15 June 1996

    An industrial tribunal was entitled to find that an employee objected to transferring to a new employer and informed his employer of that objection, holds the EAT in Hay v George Hanson (Building Contractors) Ltd.

  • Implied terms: No implied contractual right to enhanced redundancy pay

    Date:
    15 June 1996

    In Quinn and others v Calder Industrial Materials Ltd the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's ruling that the employer was not in breach of contract by failing to make enhanced redundancy payments to redundant employees.

  • Misconduct: Aggravating factors justified disparity of treatment

    Date:
    15 June 1996

    An employee was fairly dismissed for misconduct even though another employee who was guilty of the same conduct was treated differently and given a final written warning, holds the EAT in London Borough of Harrow v Cunningham.

  • Redundancy consultation: Definition of "establishment" under Collective Redundancies Directive

    Date:
    15 April 1996

    An "establishment" for the purposes of the EC Collective Redundancies Directive means the unit to which the workers made redundant are assigned to carry out their duties, rules the ECJ in Rockfon A/S v Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark.

  • Steelprint Ltd v Haynes

    Date:
    31 December 1995

    In Steelprint Ltd v Haynes EAT/467/95, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the dismissal of an employee after the employer had restructured her job but failed to provide training in the new skills required was unfair.

  • Trade union activities: Consent to recruit members did not bar criticism of employer

    Date:
    1 November 1995

    In Bass Taverns Ltd v Burgess, the Court of Appeal holds that a shop steward who resigned after he was demoted for making disparaging remarks about the employer to trainee managers was unfairly constructively dismissed for taking part in trade union activities at an appropriate time.

  • Misconduct: Dismissal of abusive employees was fair

    Date:
    1 November 1995

    An employer's decision to dismiss three employees who became drunk, abusive and violent after a seminar aimed at improving their "behavioural skills" was manifestly reasonable, holds the EAT in Whitbread Beer Company v Williams and others.

  • Redundancy: Discovery of assessment forms must relate to issues raised

    Date:
    1 July 1995

    In British Aerospace plc v Green, the Court of Appeal considers the guiding principles for ordering discovery of marked assessment forms in cases where redundant employees claim that they were unfairly selected.

About this category

Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to dismissal.