Dismissal
An employer had no right to withdraw unilaterally its employees' contractual entitlement to enhanced redundancy payments, holds the High Court in Lee and others v GEC Plessey Telecommunications.
British Coal had a statutory obligation to use a review procedure agreed with the trade unions in relation to proposed pit closures, holds the High Court in R v British Coal Corporation and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Vardy and others.
In Frames Snooker Centre v Boyce [1992] IRLR 472 EAT, the EAT held that where any one of a group of employees could have committed a particular offence meriting dismissal, the fact that one or more of them was not dismissed does not make the dismissals of the remainder unfair if the employer is able to show that it had "solid and sensible grounds", which do not have to be related to the relevant offence, for differentiating between members of the group.
In De Grasse v Stockwell Tools Ltd [1992] IRLR 269 EAT, the EAT held that the Industrial Tribunal had erred in holding that the appellant employee's dismissal on grounds of redundancy was fair, notwithstanding that there had been no prior consultation or warning.
In Allsop v North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council [1992] 90 LGR 462 CA, the Court of Appeal held that payments made to employees by a local authority as compensation for redundancy under a voluntary severance scheme were unlawful as they exceeded the prescribed limits.
The Court of Appeal holds in O'Laoire v Jackel International Ltd that, unless it can be shown that an employee will recover twice for the same loss, damages for wrongful dismissal should not be reduced by the amount of compensation awarded by a tribunal in respect of unfair dismissal.
In Robb v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham [1991] IRLR 72 HC, the High Court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the council from giving effect to the purported summary dismissal of its director of finance on disciplinary grounds - and requiring it to treat him as suspended on full pay - unless and until it had properly complied with the disciplinary procedure incorporated into his contract of employment.
An industrial tribunal was entitled to exercise its discretion to extend the time limit for unfair dismissal applications from redundant employees, who mistakenly believed that work would "pick up"; and they would be re-employed, until two weeks after the employer's business closed down.
If an employer cannot determine which individual(s), out of a group of possible culprits, are guilty of dishonesty, it may decide to dismiss them all. In Parr v Whitbread plc t/a Threshers Wine Merchants, the EAT holds that such dismissals may be fair, as long as certain criteria are met.
The High Court's decision in Micklefield v SAC Technology Ltd illustrates how employees' rights under employee share option schemes can be affected by the termination of their employment.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to dismissal.