Topics

End of employment

New and updated

  • Date:
    1 November 1994
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Reasonableness: Employer need not actively consider consultation

    In Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd, the House of Lords ruled that a redundancy dismissal will usually be unfair if the employee was not warned or consulted prior to dismissal. But the Lords said there may be exceptions to this rule where the employer, at the time of dismissal, could reasonably take the view that consultation or warnings would be useless.

  • Date:
    1 October 1994
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Dismissal: Imposition of new shift patterns was constructive dismissal

    In Interconnection Systems Ltd v Gibson, an employee was unfairly constructively dismissed when her employer imposed new shift patterns, and refused to accept that the domestic difficulties created by this change were a ground for considering transferring her to alternative work.

  • Date:
    1 October 1994
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Sickness rules: Dismissal for evening training on sick day was unfair

    In Inco Alloys Ltd v Kelly the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's decision that the dismissal of an employee, because he twice attended evening Territorial Army training sessions having been off work the same day because of sickness or injury, was unfair.

  • Date:
    1 October 1994
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Reasonableness: Dismissal for loss of licence was fair

    An employee was fairly dismissed when he lost his driving licence, holds the EAT in John Liddington Ltd v Blackett, given that his job involved substantial travelling and the employer had concluded, after careful consideration of alternative arrangements, that the job could not be done properly without a car.

  • Date:
    1 September 1994
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Negligence: Duty of care owed to subject of reference

    An employer giving a reference is under a duty to the subject of the reference to take reasonable care in compiling it, or in obtaining the information on which it is based, holds the House of Lords in Spring v Guardian Assurance plc and others.

  • Date:
    1 September 1994
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Time runs from 22.11.93

    The time limit for bringing a complaint against a public sector employer in respect of discriminatory retirement did not begin to run until the date the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay (Remedies) Regulations 1993 came into force, rules a Southampton industrial tribunal (Chair: I T Soulsby) in Wild v Portsmouth & SE Hants Health Authority.

  • Date:
    1 September 1994
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Sick man defence barred

    In Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (14 July 1994) EOR57A, the European Court of Justice rules that it is contrary to the Equal Treatment Directive to dismiss a woman employed for an unlimited term who, shortly after her recruitment is found to be pregnant, notwithstanding that she was recruited initially to replace another employee during the latter's maternity leave.

  • Date:
    1 August 1994
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Misconduct dismissals: Unauthorised "favour" was a breach of trust

    An industrial tribunal's decision that a painter was unfairly dismissed for using company materials to paint guttering at a house not included in the works contract was flawed, holds the Court of Session in McGuire v Brawley Brothers Ltd.

  • Date:
    1 July 1994
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Dismissal: Threat of termination was constructive dismissal

    An employee who resigned when her employer threatened to terminate her contract with due notice if she refused to agree to a change in her shift pattern was constructively dismissed, rules the EAT in Greenaway Harrison Ltd v Wiles.

  • Date:
    1 July 1994
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Reorganisation: Tribunal takes wrong approach on business reorganisation

    An industrial tribunal's decision that an employee could reasonably refuse a proposed detrimental variation in contractual terms because it was not based on sound business reasons vital for the company's survival was wrong, holds the EAT in Catamaran Cruisers Ltd v Williams and others.