Dismissal
In Transport & General Workers' Union v Nationwide Haulage Ltd [1978] IRLR 143 IT, the Industrial Tribunal held that the two sets of redundancies were not aggregated since there was no evidence that at the time of making the first set of redundancies there was an intention to follow them shortly with the second set.
In Tanner v DT Kean [1978] IRLR 110 EAT, the EAT held that an Industrial Tribunal was entitled to hold that in using the words "you're finished with me" to the appellant employee, the employer had merely spoken in annoyance and had not dismissed the employee.
In Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp, the Court of Appeal lays down the rule that in order to be able to resign and claim constructive dismissal within the meaning of para. 5(2)(c) of Schedule 1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, an employee must be able to show that the employer's conduct amounted to a significant breach of a fundamental term of the contract of employment or indicated that the employer no longer intended to be bound by the contract.
In Massey v Crown Life Insurance Co [1978] IRLR 31 CA, the Court of Appeal held that, whilst the parties to a contract cannot alter the truth of their relationship by putting a different label upon it, when it is ambiguous as to whether the employment is under a contract of employment or a contract for services, the terms of an agreement between the parties may be decisive as to what is the legal relationship.
In Taylor v Alidair Ltd, the Appeal Court upholds a finding by the Employment Appeal Tribunal that it was not unfair to dismiss a pilot on the basis of a single error of judgement. And in Retarded Children's Aid Society Ltd v Day, it holds that the Code of Practice notwithstanding, in some cases it may be reasonable to dismiss without giving the employee a second chance, "especially with a man who is determined to go on in his own way".
In LM Boychuk v HJ Symons Holdings Ltd [1977] IRLR 395 EAT, the EAT held that an employee who insisted on wearing a "Lesbians Ignite" badge was fairly dismissed because the employer asserted that the badge could cause offence to fellow employees and customers.
When the fixed term contract of a temporary employee expires without being renewed, the test of fairness may be less stringent than would be adopted for an employee whose status was not seen from the start as temporary. This is one of the points to emerge from Gwent County Council v Lane and Terry v East Sussex County Council.
In Devis & Sons v Atkins, the House of Lords rules that whether a dismissal is unfair must be judged according to the facts which the employer knew or should have known at the time the decision to dismiss was taken.
In Mansfield Hosiery Mills Lid v Bromley, the EAT emphasises that it is only in exceptional cases that a failure to follow a correct procedure will not result in a finding of unfair dismissal.
In Post Office v PA Mughal [1977] IRLR 178 EAT, the EAT established that the general test of fairness in dismissing a probationary employee is whether the employer took reasonable steps to maintain appraisal of the probationer throughout the probationary period, giving guidance by advice or warning, and whether an honest effort was made to determine whether he or she came up to the required standard.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to dismissal.