Misconduct dismissals
In Farrant v Woodroffe School, the EAT holds that a dismissal is not necessarily unfair where the reason for it was the employer's genuine but mistaken belief that the employee was refusing to obey an instruction falling within the scope of his contract of employment.
In Williams and others v Whitbread Beer Co the Court of Appeal restores the decision of an industrial tribunal that an employer unfairly dismissed three employees for drunken, abusive and violent behaviour in circumstances where the misconduct took place outside work and where it was the employer who had provided the opportunity for the employees to drink.
An employee was fairly dismissed for misconduct even though another employee who was guilty of the same conduct was treated differently and given a final written warning, holds the EAT in London Borough of Harrow v Cunningham.
An employer's decision to dismiss three employees who became drunk, abusive and violent after a seminar aimed at improving their "behavioural skills" was manifestly reasonable, holds the EAT in Whitbread Beer Company v Williams and others.
An industrial tribunal was not entitled to find that allegedly inconsistent treatment of employees rendered a dismissal for misconduct unfair, holds the Court of Appeal in Paul v East Surrey District Health Authority.
An employer is entitled to expect that an employee will not compete with it for contracts with existing customers, holds the EAT in Adamson v B&L Cleaning Services Ltd.
In Inco Alloys Ltd v Kelly the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's decision that the dismissal of an employee, because he twice attended evening Territorial Army training sessions having been off work the same day because of sickness or injury, was unfair.
An industrial tribunal's decision that a painter was unfairly dismissed for using company materials to paint guttering at a house not included in the works contract was flawed, holds the Court of Session in McGuire v Brawley Brothers Ltd.
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.
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.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to misconduct dismissals.