End of employment
An employee's contract of employment continued after an exchange of letters between the employee, giving one month's notice of termination, and her employer, confirming that it did not want her to work out her notice period and that her salary would be paid in lieu at the end of the notice period, holds the Court of Appeal in Hutchings v Coinseed Ltd.
In Caledonia Bureau Investment & Property v Caffrey, the EAT holds that the automatically unfair dismissal provision which protects a woman against dismissal for a reason "connected with her pregnancy" is not limited to dismissals occurring during the period of pregnancy and maternity leave.
In Langston v Cranfield University, the EAT rules that an industrial tribunal determining a claim of unfair dismissal by reason of redundancy must consider as a matter of course whether there was unfair selection, lack of consultation or failure to seek alternative employment on the part of the employer.
In Jones v Mid-Glamorgan County Council, the Court of Appeal upholds an industrial tribunal's finding that an individual's employment terminated by agreement through a genuine voluntary retirement rather than by dismissal.
In Farrant v Woodroffe School, the EAT holds that a dismissal is not necessarily unfair where the reason for it was the employer's genuine but mistaken belief that the employee was refusing to obey an instruction falling within the scope of his contract of employment.
In Goodwin v Cabletel UK Ltd [1997] IRLR 665 EAT, the EAT held that the industrial tribunal had erred in holding that the dismissal of the appellant "designated employee" could not fall within the protection against dismissal for carrying out activities in connection with preventing or reducing risks to health and safety at work provided by the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act because it was the way in which he carried out his health and safety activities, rather than the actual doing of them, which led to his dismissal.
An employer did not act in fundamental breach of an employee's contract of employment when it required him to retire at the age of 55, in accordance with its retirement policy aimed at achieving a younger workforce, even though the contract incorporated an equal opportunities policy containing an express commitment to offer equal opportunities regardless of age, rules the EAT in Secretary of State for Scotland v Taylor.
In Mennell v Newell & Wright (Transport Contractors) Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that an employee may have the right not to be unfairly dismissed for asserting a relevant statutory right even though the employer has not actually infringed that right.
Where a safety representative claims that he or she was subjected to a detriment for performing functions as an acknowledged health and safety representative, it is no defence for the employer to argue that the representative intended to embarrass the company in front of the external safety authorities or performed those functions in an unreasonable way unacceptable to the employer, holds the EAT in Shillito v Van Leer (UK) Ltd.
The question of where an employee was employed for the purposes of the statutory definition of redundancy is to be answered primarily by a consideration of the factual circumstances which obtained until the dismissal, holds the Court of Appeal in High Table Ltd v Horst and others.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to the end of employment.
Access our main resources on end of employment according to the type of information you need.