The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that the circumstances surrounding a protected conversation made dismissal appear a foregone conclusion and amounted to a fundamental breach of contract.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that an employment tribunal failed to consider whether or not the "perfunctory" and "insensitive" nature of a long-serving employee's redundancy consultation made his dismissal unfair.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that where an employee is dismissed for misconduct following an earlier warning that the tribunal has found to be manifestly inappropriate, the tribunal must examine the weight the employer attached to that warning in deciding whether or not the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses.
This employment tribunal held that an employer fairly dismissed an employee who refused to do overtime as required under her contract of employment and whose protests at being asked to do so caused discontent among her fellow workers.
In Holmes v Qinetiq Ltd [2016] IRLR 664 EAT, the EAT held the "Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures" has no application where an employer does not allege culpable conduct by an employee. Accordingly, no uplift to compensation under s.207A of TULR(C)A could be applied where the employee was unfairly dismissed on ill-health grounds.
An employment tribunal has held that an experienced employee should have appreciated the seriousness of breaching his employer's hygiene rules and it was appropriate for the employer to dismiss him.
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.