We look at four employment tribunal cases in which the claimants argued that their employer's failure to make better use of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme rendered their dismissal unfair.
In Kirk v Citibank NA and others, an employment tribunal held that a senior banker who was dismissed following a redundancy process was subjected to direct age discrimination and unfairly dismissed.
In Kelly v Royal Mail Group Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a long-serving employee's dismissal for frequent absences in accordance with the employer's attendance policy was harsh but fair.
In Hawkes v Ausin Group (UK) Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the employer's failure to hold a meeting with a reservist employee, before making the decision to dismiss, did not make the dismissal for some other substantial reason unfair.
In Afzal v East London Pizza Ltd t/a Dominos Pizza, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that an employee who was dismissed when he failed to produce evidence of his continuing right to work in the UK should have had the right to appeal.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that the "Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures" does not apply to dismissals for some other substantial reason (SOSR) due to a breakdown in working relationships.
Beth Staniland is a trainee solicitor, and Emma Cousins, Ciara Jenkins, Iain Naylor and Lucy Sorell are associates at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.
An unfair dismissal tribunal case has illustrated a model response from an employer faced with a client's refusal to have an employee back on its site.
In DLA Piper's case of the week, Lund v St Edmund's School, Canterbury, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures should have been followed in a case where the reason for dismissal was stated to be for "some other substantial reason" (SOSR), but disciplinary proceedings ought to have been invoked.