In Secretary of State for Justice v Mansfield EAT/0539/09, the EAT held that the postponement of disciplinary proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings in respect of the employee's alleged misconduct did not render his eventual dismissal unfair.
In Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Roldan [2010] EWCA Civ 522 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employment tribunal was entitled to find a dismissal unfair where the reason for the dismissal included an allegation about a secondary incident that had not been particularised, and where there had been a failure to investigate a key dispute of fact between the accuser and accused.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that, on the facts of the case, an employer did not commit sex discrimination against an employee on maternity leave when an administrative error meant that she was not informed of a job vacancy.
The employment tribunal in this case increased the amount of compensation awarded to an unfairly dismissed employee because of his employer's failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment or to dismiss him in accordance with the Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures.
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 BP plc v Elstone and another EAT/0141/09, the EAT held that a worker was entitled to bring a complaint under the whistleblowing provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of a detriment that he allegedly suffered in his current employment because of a protected disclosure that he had made while in previous employment.