Constructive dismissal
In Tapere v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust EAT/0410/08, the EAT held that, in requiring a transferred employee to move to a location outside the scope of the mobility clause in her original contract of employment with the transferor, the transferee had acted in fundamental breach of contract. The employee's subsequent resignation therefore amounted to a constructive dismissal. Further, the transferee's attempt to move her place of work amounted to a substantial change in her working conditions to her material detriment. She was, therefore, also entitled to be treated as having been dismissed under reg.4(9) of the TUPE Regulations.
In Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation v Buckland EAT/0492/08, the EAT held that the well-established contractual test for determining whether or not constructive dismissal has occurred should not be embellished by the introduction of the range of reasonable responses test, a concept that is properly confined to the law of unfair dismissal. In doing so, it declined to follow the EAT decisions in Abbey National plc v Fairbrother and Claridge v Daler Rowney Ltd.
In Claridge v Daler Rowney Ltd [2008] IRLR 672, the EAT held that, although it is for the tribunal to determine whether or not an employer has committed a repudiatory breach of contract, the employer's handling of the grievance procedure will amount to such a breach only where it fell outside the range of reasonable responses open to the employer.
In Stevenson v JM Skinner & Co EAT/0584/07, the EAT held that an employer complied with its statutory duty to carry out a risk assessment in relation to a pregnant employee when it addressed her concerns at meetings with her and, taking account of all the circumstances, evaluated and agreed the relevant risks.
In Shaw v CCL Ltd EAT/0512/06, the EAT held that an employee whose request to work part time on her return from maternity leave was refused had been constructively unfairly dismissed.
In Secession Ltd t/a Freud v Bellingham EAT/0069/05, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that the tribunal was entitled to imply a term to the effect that an employee with no written contract had the right to be paid in full during periods of sickness absence.
This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering: constructive dismissal compensation; and injury to feelings awards.
In Melia v Magna Kansei Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that where an employee has been subjected to detriment for having made a protected disclosure and then resigned claiming constructive dismissal, compensation for injured feelings should be assessed over the entire period up to the date of termination.
In Land Securities Trilium Ltd v Thornley, the EAT holds that, when deciding whether there has been a change in job duties, the tribunal may look not only at how the duties were described in the employee's original job description, but also at the actual work she had been given.
Joe Glavina and Emma Slark at Addleshaw Goddard bring you a comprehensive update on the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and provide advice on what to do about them.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to constructive dismissal.