Unfair dismissal
In Shaw v CCL Ltd EAT/0512/06, the EAT held that an employee whose request to work part time on her return from maternity leave was refused had been constructively unfairly dismissed.
In Klusova v London Borough of Hounslow [2007] EWCA Civ 1127, the Court of Appeal upheld a finding of unfair dismissal in the case of an employee who was dismissed on the grounds that she was no longer entitled to work in the UK. There was evidence to support the tribunal's finding that the employee was, in fact, legally entitled to work in the UK at the time of her dismissal. While the employer's mistaken belief about her immigration status was capable of amounting to "some other substantial reason" for dismissal, the fact that the employer had failed to follow the statutory dismissal procedure rendered the dismissal automatically unfair.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that, in the circumstances of the case, the issue of disparate treatment did not arise when an employee was dismissed but another was not disciplined.
A review of a number of recent employment tribunal decisions suggests that some employers remain unaware of the implications of, or are struggling with, the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1031), which became law on 1 October 2006. The decisions also demonstrate the approach that the tribunals might take to the question of justification of discrimination and to the assessment of injury to feelings compensation.
In Corus UK Ltd v Mainwaring EAT/0053/07, the EAT held that an employer did not act unreasonably when it failed to interview an informant who alleged that a fellow employee was malingering, as that allegation merely triggered a fair investigation. In addition, it was not necessary for the employer to seek medical evidence from a specialist consultant, it being reasonable for it to rely on evidence about the employee's medical condition from a GP.
In McAdie v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2007] IRLR 895, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the fact that an employee's stress-related illness was caused by the employer was no bar in law to a fair dismissal on the grounds of capability.
The EAT in Greenwood v Whiteghyll Plastics Ltd EAT/0219/07 held that, although third-party pressure can constitute "some other substantial reason" justifying dismissal, when dismissing an employee in response to complaints from a major client, the employer was not entitled to disregard the issue of injustice caused to the employee.
In Vernon v Event Management Catering Ltd EAT/0161/07 the EAT held that a casual worker who, with the exception of a single two-week break to take a holiday, worked every week for more than three years was an employee and had sufficient continuity of service to claim unfair dismissal. He could demonstrate the existence of a contract of employment in each week during the relevant period and the period of holiday did not break his continuity of employment.
Judith Harris, professional support lawyer at Addleshaw Goddard, outlines the latest legal rulings.
In Sandhu v Jan de Rijk Transport Ltd [2007] IRLR 519 CA the Court of Appeal held that when an employee negotiated severance terms and resigned during a meeting called without advance warning to effect his dismissal in circumstances where he had no time to reflect or seek advice, the only conclusion open to the tribunal as a matter of law was that he had been dismissed.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to unfair dismissal.