Unfair dismissal
In Claridge v Daler Rowney Ltd [2008] IRLR 672, the EAT held that, although it is for the tribunal to determine whether or not an employer has committed a repudiatory breach of contract, the employer's handling of the grievance procedure will amount to such a breach only where it fell outside the range of reasonable responses open to the employer.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employee's admission of gross misconduct limited the need for a detailed investigation by her employer prior to dismissal.
In Capita Health Solutions v McLean and another [2008] IRLR 595, the EAT held that an employee's objection to becoming employed by the transferee did not have the effect of preventing the transfer of her contract of employment, as she had undertaken work for the transferee after the transfer date.
In Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] IRLR 530, the Court of Appeal held that, having rejected the potentially fair reason for dismissal put forward by the employer, the tribunal was not obliged to accept the automatically unfair reason put forward by the employee. It was entitled to find that the employer had at least proved that this was not the reason for dismissal.
In Stevenson v JM Skinner & Co EAT/0584/07, the EAT held that an employer complied with its statutory duty to carry out a risk assessment in relation to a pregnant employee when it addressed her concerns at meetings with her and, taking account of all the circumstances, evaluated and agreed the relevant risks.
In Airbus UK Ltd v Webb [2008] IRLR 309, the Court of Appeal held that Diosynth Ltd v Thomson did not establish a rule of law that spent warnings must be ignored for all purposes. On the facts, where a spent warning was not part of the reason for the dismissal, but the basis for the employer's refusal to exercise leniency in respect of later gross misconduct, neither Diosynth nor the wording of s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 rendered the dismissal necessarily unfair.
In Ralph Martindale & Co Ltd v Harris EAT/0166/07, the EAT held that a redundancy dismissal was unfair where the process for deciding who should be offered an alternative post involved no objective criteria and no attempt to assess the candidates against a job description. It was unfair for the employer to rely mainly on a subjective assessment of whose management style would best suit the new post.
In Davies v Farnborough College of Technology [2008] IRLR 14, the EAT held that a dismissal that involved a breach of step two of the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedure was automatically unfair, even though a full and proper appeal had been heard. The tribunal was wrong to find that the appeal "cured" the defect in the original hearing. However, it was clear that a dismissal would have occurred even if the procedure had been properly followed, so the compensatory award was set at zero.
In Atkins v Coyle Personnel plc EAT/0206/07, the EAT held that, for an employee to claim successfully that his dismissal was related to the fact that he had taken paternity leave, there must be a causal link between the dismissal and the leave.
This article looks at some of the important judgments in the area of the transfer of undertakings over the past year.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to unfair dismissal.