End of employment
In Caledonian Mining Company Ltd v Bassett and another the EAT holds that an industrial tribunal was entitled to conclude, on the facts before it, that a group of employees had been dismissed within the meaning of s.83(2) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 when they were inveigled into resigning by their employers.
Many collective agreements state that they are to be "binding in honour only". In Marley v Forward Trust Group Ltd the Court of Appeal holds that this applies between the parties to the agreement, ie the union and employer, and does not affect the legal enforceability of terms of collective agreements which are incorporated into contracts of employment of individuals.
In Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (26.2.86) EOR7E, the European Court of Justice rules that compulsory retirement of men and women at different ages contravenes the EEC Equal Treatment Directive.
In Brown and others v Knowsley Borough Council the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's ruling that a temporary teacher employed by a local authority on an MSC funded course was engaged under a contract for a specific purpose (ie a contract to last only for so long as was necessary to fulfil its purpose).
In Transport & General Workers' Union v Ledbury Preserves (1928) Ltd [1985] IRLR 412 EAT, the EAT held that in a potential redundancy situation there must be "sufficient meaningful" consultation before notices of dismissal are sent out.
In Delabole Slate Ltd v Berriman the Court of Appeal upholds the EAT's decision that a dismissal which occurs as a consequence of a change in terms of employment following the transfer of an undertaking is not a dismissal for "an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce", and so is automatically unfair under reg.8(1) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.
In Birch and Humber v University of Liverpool the Court of Appeal upholds a tribunal's finding that the termination of employment which resulted from the employees' offer to retire early and the employer's acceptance of that offer was not a dismissal but a termination by mutual agreement; so, there having been no dismissal, the employees were not entitled to a redundancy payment.
The EAT can overturn industrial tribunal decisions on the ground either that there has been an error of law, or that the decision was perverse. In Dobie v Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that these are alternative not cumulative reasons for allowing an appeal.
The Court of Appeal has established that if words of dismissal or resignation are unambiguous, they cannot be overridden by appeals to what a reasonable employee or employer might have taken them to mean. J & J Stern v Simpson the EAT holds that that does not mean that the words must initially be viewed in isolation, but that the surrounding circumstances are relevant to whether the words used are ambiguous.
Whether or not words of dismissal uttered in the heat of the moment can be retracted quickly has in the past been left undecided by the Court of Appeal and the EAT. In Martin v Yeomen Aggregates Ltd the EAT, in a rather unsatisfactory judgment, appears to hold that immediate retraction of a summary dismissal is possible in law.
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.