The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that employees who resigned after being faced with a change of place of work to a different part of London because of a TUPE transfer were constructively dismissed.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the dismissal of employees transferred to a company that engaged individuals only under a franchise agreement could amount to an economic, technical or organisational reason (ETO) for dismissal entailing changes to the workforce.
In this case, the employer plotted to dismiss an employee on "trumped up" charges, but he was vindicated by an employment tribunal that saw through the employer's sham disciplinary process.
In Oudahar v Esporta Group Ltd [2011] IRLR 730 EAT, the EAT held that a dismissal could be automatically unfair for a reason related to health and safety even though the employer genuinely did not share the employee's belief that a situation was dangerous, and dismissed him for his repeated failure to undertake a task that he thought was unsafe.
The Court of Appeal has held that, for there to be an automatic unfair dismissal under TUPE, there does not need to have been a particular transfer or transferee in existence or in contemplation at the time of the dismissal.
In this case, the industrial tribunal in Northern Ireland described a small employer's decision to dismiss a young worker to avoid having to increase her pay from £4.00 to the national minimum wage rate of £4.92, when she reached the age of 18, as "callous".
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld the employment tribunal decision that a former NHS trust chief executive was automatically unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employee who was dismissed for refusing to work because of health and safety concerns, even though his employer genuinely believed that there was no danger, could be automatically unfairly dismissed.