Dismissal
In Savage v J Sainsbury Ltd [1980] IRLR 109 CA, the Court of Appeal held that where a disciplinary procedure provides a right of appeal against dismissal and treats the employee as suspended without pay until the appeal is heard, the effective date of termination if the appeal is rejected is when the dismissal initially took effect and not when the appeal was rejected.
In Ford v Milthorn Toleman Ltd [1980] IRLR 30 CA, the Court of Appeal upheld the EAT's finding that an employee was entitled to claim constructive dismissal when, upon receiving his notice that he was to join a competitor, his employers removed his duties as a sales manager and proposed to change the basis of his remuneration.
The Court of Appeal held, in Hollister v National Farmers' Union, that Mr Hollister's dismissal for refusing to accept the terms of a re-organisation amounted to some other substantial reason for dismissal. And in Banerjee v City & East London AHA, the EAT overturned an Industrial Tribunal's decision that Mr Banerjee's dismissal from his post of part-time consultant surgeon following a decision to replace part-timers with full-timers was for some other substantial reason.
In Ladbroke Racing Ltd v Arnott and others [1979] IRLR 192 EAT, the EAT held that the Industrial Tribunal was entitled to find that the respondent betting shop employees had been unfairly dismissed on grounds of placing bets on behalf of outside persons or condoning such bets, notwithstanding that the appellants' disciplinary rules specified that such conduct would result in immediate dismissal.
The correct approach to cases of suspected misconduct in general - and suspected dishonesty in particular - was set out last year by the EAT in British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell.
In McNally v Welltrade International Ltd, T James and Well Trade Middle East Ltd [1978] IRLR 497 HC, the High Court held that a claim for damages can be brought under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 against an individual who negligently advises an applicant that he or she is suitable for a job vacancy.
In Sutton & Gates (Luton) Ltd v Boxall [1978] IRLR 486 EAT, the EAT held that the Industrial Tribunal had not erred in holding that the respondent employee's dismissal on grounds of lack of capability was unfair because he had not been given an opportunity to offer an explanation for his poor performance.
Generally, dismissal of an employee for a single act of misconduct where the offence in question is specified as one that will result in dismissal under the company's disciplinary rules and procedure, is likely to result in a finding of fair dismissal. But, as Laws Stores Ltd v Oliphant shows, this will not always be so.
In UBAF Bank Ltd v Davis [1978] IRLR 442 EAT, the EAT held that the employee was unfairly dismissed because he had never received a written warning of dismissal.
In The Bakers' Union v Clarks of Hove Ltd [1978] IRLR 366 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the EAT had incorrectly set aside the finding by the Industrial Tribunal that the employers' insolvency was not a special circumstance rendering it not reasonably practicable for them to comply with the redundancy consultation provisions of the Employment Protection Act, section 99.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to dismissal.