Automatically unfair dismissal
This case is a good example of a key issue in TUPE claims: whether or not an employee was assigned to the transferred undertaking.
In Goode v Marks & Spencer plc EAT/0442/09, the EAT held that an employment tribunal was right to find that an employee had not been dismissed because of having made a protected disclosure. There had been no qualifying or protected disclosure, but merely an opinion expressed about the employer's proposal for changes to a discretionary enhanced redundancy scheme.
In Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld [2010] IRLR 38 EAT, the EAT held that the employment tribunal erred in deciding that a solicitor's letter amounted to a qualifying disclosure for the purposes of s.43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The letter merely stated the employee's position in an ongoing dispute, without alleging any facts.
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 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.
In Babula v Waltham Forest College [2007] IRLR 346 the Court of Appeal held that to qualify for protection from detriment or dismissal for whistleblowing, a worker must hold a "reasonable belief" that the information disclosed tends to show that a criminal offence will be committed or that there will be non-compliance with a legal obligation.
This week's case of the week, provided by Covington & Burling, covers TUPE transfers.
This article looks at some of the important judgments in the area of the transfer of undertakings over the past year.
In London Metropolitan University v Sackur and others EAT/0286/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that standardisation of employees' terms is not of itself sufficient to give rise to an ETO defence.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to automatically unfair dismissal.