Unfair dismissal
In Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Wooster EAT/0441/08, the EAT upheld a finding that the redundancy dismissal of a 49-year-old employee amounted to age discrimination. The tribunal was entitled to find that the employer could have found alternative work for him, but that it had failed to do so because it was concerned that, if he remained employed up to the age of 50, he would be entitled to a more generous early retirement package.
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 Lomond Motors Ltd v Clark EATS/0019/09, the EAT held that an employment tribunal had erred in finding a dismissal unfair on the grounds that the redundancy selection pool had been incorrectly drawn. The tribunal had substituted its own view for that of a reasonable employer. The tribunal had further erred in its assessment of compensation.
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers unfair dismissal and pension loss.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employer fairly dismissed an employee when a client refused to have him carry out work for it.
In Central & North West London NHS Foundation Trust v Abimbola EAT/0542/08, the EAT held that the employment tribunal had wrongly excluded highly relevant factors from its consideration of whether or not it was practicable to order reinstatement following a finding of unfair dismissal.
In Sehmi v Gate Gourmet London Ltd; Sandhu and others v Gate Gourmet London Ltd EAT/0264/08 & EAT/0265/08, the EAT held that, while the withdrawal by an employee of his or her labour will not necessarily justify dismissal, in a situation where large numbers of employees deliberately absent themselves from work in a manner that is liable to do serious damage to the employer's business, dismissal of those taking part in the action will be reasonable, even where the absence is not prolonged.
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.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employer did not unfairly dismiss an employee when it failed to investigate in detail the nature of his misconduct in circumstances where he had admitted his guilt.
In Ali v Birmingham City Council EAT/0313/08, the EAT held that an employee's unambiguous resignation was effective and could not be unilaterally withdrawn once it had been accepted by the employer. It is only in exceptional circumstances that words of resignation should not be taken at their face value
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to unfair dismissal.