End of employment

New and updated

• Date:

  9 December 2009

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Unfair dismissal: Norton Tool principle does not apply to unfair constructive dismissal

  In Stuart Peters Ltd v Bell [2009] IRLR 941 CA, the Court of Appeal held that, in a case of constructive unfair dismissal, the Norton Tool principle that compensation for unfair dismissal without notice must include a sum representing the employee's full pay during his or her notice period does not apply, and the employee must give credit for any earnings during this period.

• Date:

  23 November 2009

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Age discrimination: Dismissal to avoid age-related benefit was discriminatory

  In Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Wooster EAT/0441/08, the EAT upheld a finding that the redundancy dismissal of a 49-year-old employee amounted to age discrimination. The tribunal was entitled to find that the employer could have found alternative work for him, but that it had failed to do so because it was concerned that, if he remained employed up to the age of 50, he would be entitled to a more generous early retirement package.

• Date:

  23 November 2009

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Redundancy: ECJ rules on consultation provisions in Collective Redundancies Directive

  In Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK Ry and others v Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy [2009] IRLR 944 ECJ, the ECJ held that an employer's duty under the Collective Redundancies Directive to consult workers' representatives about the possibility of redundancies arises when strategic decisions or changes in activities make the employer contemplate or plan for collective redundancies.

• Date:

  11 November 2009

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  TUPE: Requirement to move to location outside scope of mobility clause in original contract was fundamental breach of contract

  In Tapere v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust EAT/0410/08, the EAT held that, in requiring a transferred employee to move to a location outside the scope of the mobility clause in her original contract of employment with the transferor, the transferee had acted in fundamental breach of contract. The employee's subsequent resignation therefore amounted to a constructive dismissal. Further, the transferee's attempt to move her place of work amounted to a substantial change in her working conditions to her material detriment. She was, therefore, also entitled to be treated as having been dismissed under reg.4(9) of the TUPE Regulations.

• Date:

  11 November 2009

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Redundancy: Employer was entitled to determine narrow pool for redundancy selection

  In Lomond Motors Ltd v Clark EATS/0019/09, the EAT held that an employment tribunal had erred in finding a dismissal unfair on the grounds that the redundancy selection pool had been incorrectly drawn. The tribunal had substituted its own view for that of a reasonable employer. The tribunal had further erred in its assessment of compensation.

• Type:

  FAQs

  If recruiting to a position from which an employee was recently dismissed for redundancy, must the employer offer the job to the individual who was made redundant?

• Type:

  FAQs

  Where a vacancy arises after an earlier redundancy exercise, must the employer offer the position to someone who was made redundant?

• Type:

  FAQs

  If an employer dismisses a pregnant employee as redundant are they still entitled to receive maternity pay?

• Type:

  FAQs

  At which rate of tax is any redundancy payment above £30,000 taxed?

• Type:

  Employment law cases

  Case of the week: Unfair dismissal and pension loss

  This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers unfair dismissal and pension loss.