Unfair dismissal
Karen Smith and Sophy Robinson of Addleshaw Goddard bring you a comprehensive update on the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and provide advice on what to do about them.
This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering unfair dismissal.
In Voith Turbo Ltd v Stowe, the EAT holds that, applying the principles established in Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson, the tribunal was entitled to find that an unfairly dismissed employee did not have to give credit for earnings achieved during the period covered by notice pay made by his former employer.
In Judge v Crown Leisure Ltd, the EAT holds the tribunal did not err in law in deciding, as a matter of factual analysis, that a conversation between the applicant and his manager at a staff Christmas party did not amount to an enforceable promise to increase his pay, but were merely words of comfort.
In London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju, the Court of Appeal holds that conduct by an employer amounting to the "last straw" for the purposes of a finding of constructive dismissal must be the last in a series of actions which cumulatively amount to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.
In Strouthos v London Underground Ltd the Court of Appeal holds that the EAT was incorrect to infer an employee's dishonesty from the facts found by the tribunal, when dishonesty had not been alleged in the original disciplinary proceedings.
In Soteriou v Ultrachem Ltd and others [2004] IRLR 870 HC, the High Court held that the EAT had not erred in striking out the applicant's claim for wrongful dismissal on the basis that an employment tribunal had already determined on a claim for unfair dismissal that the applicant's contract of employment was unenforceable due to illegality and that, since the claim for wrongful dismissal involved the same contract, the EAT was bound by that finding.
This week's case law round-up from Eversheds, covering pregnancy-related dismissals and transfers not covered by TUPE Regulations.
In Dunnachie v Kingston-upon-Hull City Council, the House of Lords holds that Lord Hoffman's comments in Johnson were obiter and, therefore, did not prevent the House of Lords from finding that unfair dismissal compensation should be restricted to economic losses only.
In Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers' Centre, the Court of Appeal holds that an employment tribunal had been correct to find that an employee's "whistleblowing" disclosure was not made in good faith because, although she believed her allegations to be true and did not make the disclosure for personal gain, her motivation for making it was personal antagonism towards the subject of the disclosure.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to unfair dismissal.