This case is a good example of how the dismissal of an employee for a failure to follow an important protocol or rule can be unfair where the protocol or rule was not communicated effectively in the first place.
The Court of Appeal has held that, for there to be an automatic unfair dismissal under TUPE, there does not need to have been a particular transfer or transferee in existence or in contemplation at the time of the dismissal.
A store manager for this large retailer took the wrong approach to a shift worker who insisted that she was not able to work on Christmas Eve, in a cautionary tale for employers that have strict rules requiring employees to work during the Christmas period.
This employment tribunal found that a police force fairly dismissed a police community support officer (PCSO) over the unexplained disappearance of £15, despite the circumstantial nature of the evidence against her.
In this case, the employer failed to meet its legal obligations to an employee who was a reservist returning from deployment in Afghanistan. The case was complicated by the fact that it was a client's refusal to have the employee back on site that resulted in his dismissal.
The employer in this case fell into the classic trap of burying its head in the sand and failing to consult collectively with employees over the realistic possibility that its business might close and its workforce be made redundant.