Dismissal
In Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd, the House of Lords ruled that a redundancy dismissal will usually be unfair if the employee was not warned or consulted prior to dismissal. But the Lords said there may be exceptions to this rule where the employer, at the time of dismissal, could reasonably take the view that consultation or warnings would be useless.
In Interconnection Systems Ltd v Gibson, an employee was unfairly constructively dismissed when her employer imposed new shift patterns, and refused to accept that the domestic difficulties created by this change were a ground for considering transferring her to alternative work.
In Inco Alloys Ltd v Kelly the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's decision that the dismissal of an employee, because he twice attended evening Territorial Army training sessions having been off work the same day because of sickness or injury, was unfair.
An employee was fairly dismissed when he lost his driving licence, holds the EAT in John Liddington Ltd v Blackett, given that his job involved substantial travelling and the employer had concluded, after careful consideration of alternative arrangements, that the job could not be done properly without a car.
In Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (14 July 1994) EOR57A, the European Court of Justice rules that it is contrary to the Equal Treatment Directive to dismiss a woman employed for an unlimited term who, shortly after her recruitment is found to be pregnant, notwithstanding that she was recruited initially to replace another employee during the latter's maternity leave.
An industrial tribunal's decision that a painter was unfairly dismissed for using company materials to paint guttering at a house not included in the works contract was flawed, holds the Court of Session in McGuire v Brawley Brothers Ltd.
An employee who resigned when her employer threatened to terminate her contract with due notice if she refused to agree to a change in her shift pattern was constructively dismissed, rules the EAT in Greenaway Harrison Ltd v Wiles.
An industrial tribunal's decision that an employee could reasonably refuse a proposed detrimental variation in contractual terms because it was not based on sound business reasons vital for the company's survival was wrong, holds the EAT in Catamaran Cruisers Ltd v Williams and others.
In Hellyer Brothers Ltd v Atkinson and Dickinson [1994] IRLR 88 CA, the Court of Appeal held that, because of the peculiarities of the crew agreement system, the employees could not claim redundancy payments because of gaps in their continuous employment.
When deciding whether to order the re-employment of an unfairly dismissed employee, an industrial tribunal only has to make a "provisional" determination or assessment on the practicability of the employer complying with such an order, holds the Court of Appeal in Port of London Authority v Payne and others.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to dismissal.