A civilian police worker unsuccessfully claimed unfair dismissal and disability discrimination after she lost her job for a dangerous driving conviction. This is an example of an employer legitimately dismissing a worker who has been convicted of a criminal offence outside work.
In this decision, the employment tribunal was critical of a local authority that failed to keep an employee at risk of redundancy in employment for six more months during a transitional period. The decision had been taken to avoid a pension payout and constituted direct age discrimination and unfair dismissal.
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.
In this case, the tribunal held that a police force was entitled to dismiss a long-serving employee who admitted that she had committed a single act of dishonesty outside work.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the employment tribunal had not considered properly the evidence as to whether or not a significant group of Sikhs were disadvantaged by a council's policy that all staff who used of the communal staff kitchen had to join the rota to clean the fridge.
This case is an example of an employer that needed to deal with the extremely difficult issue of having a disciplinary matter pending against a member of staff on maternity leave.
The Court of Appeal has held that the summary dismissal of Sharon Shoesmith, during the fallout from the death of "Baby P", was unlawful. In finding that she was entitled to a decision on her judicial review application, the Court held that her alternative employment tribunal remedy was not "equally convenient and effective".
The Court of Appeal has given short shrift to a police officer's disability discrimination claim over his police force's actions after he displayed violent tendencies at a Christmas party that led his colleagues to fear for their safety.
The Tax and Chancery Chamber of the Upper Tribunal has held that expectant mothers can choose to start their statutory maternity pay (SMP) at a later date than the date when they cease work.