An employment tribunal has held that the dismissal of a long-serving employee who was reported for using his mobile phone while driving in his own car into a workplace car park was unfair.
An employment tribunal has held that the dismissal of a bus driver who was seen holding his mobile phone while exiting a bus stand, in breach of the employer's very strict and clearly communicated mobile phone rules, was fair.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that an employer was not obliged to put the disciplinary process on hold until the employee's grievance had been investigated.
An employment tribunal has struck out whistleblowing claims brought by an individual who argued that he made a protected disclosure when he complained that his line manager had been rude to a colleague. The claimant did not reasonably believe that he was making the disclosure "in the public interest".
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that allegations about accounting malpractices that affected the bonuses and commission of 100 senior managers were made in the reasonable belief that they were in the public interest.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that a dismissal was procedurally unfair because the chair of the disciplinary panel had no experience or training in conducting disciplinary hearings. This led to the disciplinary panel misapplying the disciplinary procedure, and in these circumstances, the EAT found the dismissal was also substantively unfair.
James Buckley, Iain Naylor, Chris McAvoy and Lucy Sorell are associates and Mona Jackson is a trainee solicitor at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.
A bus driver has been awarded nearly £84,000 after his employer failed to investigate his claim that traces of cocaine picked up on a mouth swab during a drug test were the result of contamination on his hands from passengers' banknotes.
The Court of Appeal has held that it was reasonable for the employer not to carry out a detailed investigation into an employee's explanations for unusually high travel expense claims as the employer had obtained sufficient evidence to decide that the employee's explanations were implausible.