Topics

Dismissal

New and updated

  • Date:
    16 September 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    TUPE: Objection to transfer not valid

    In Capita Health Solutions v McLean and another [2008] IRLR 595, the EAT held that an employee's objection to becoming employed by the transferee did not have the effect of preventing the transfer of her contract of employment, as she had undertaken work for the transferee after the transfer date.

  • Date:
    29 August 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Collective redundancies: Employer company liable for post-liquidation protective award

    In Haine and another v Day [2008] IRLR 642, the Court of Appeal held that a protective award made after the employer company went into liquidation in respect of its failure to consult before making collective redundancies was a provable, and therefore potentially recoverable, debt.

  • Type:
    FAQs

    If a pregnant employee is made redundant before commencing maternity leave can their employer pay their statutory maternity pay in one lump sum?

  • Date:
    11 August 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    TUPE: Liability under employment contracts should not be split between transferees

    In Kimberley Group Housing Ltd v Hambley and others; Angel Services (UK) Ltd v Hambley and others EAT/0488/07 & EAT/0489/07, the EAT overturned an employment tribunal decision to split liability for employment contracts in proportion to the split in activities after a service provision change.

  • Type:
    FAQs

    Is an employer obliged to wait a certain period of time before re-employing an employee who was dismissed for redundancy?

  • Date:
    30 June 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Whistleblowing: Burden of proof

    In Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] IRLR 530, the Court of Appeal held that, having rejected the potentially fair reason for dismissal put forward by the employer, the tribunal was not obliged to accept the automatically unfair reason put forward by the employee. It was entitled to find that the employer had at least proved that this was not the reason for dismissal.

  • Date:
    11 June 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Sex discrimination: No obligation to communicate risk assessment findings in writing

    In Stevenson v JM Skinner & Co EAT/0584/07, the EAT held that an employer complied with its statutory duty to carry out a risk assessment in relation to a pregnant employee when it addressed her concerns at meetings with her and, taking account of all the circumstances, evaluated and agreed the relevant risks.

  • Date:
    29 May 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Commission for Healthcare Audit & Inspection v Ward

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that, when deciding whether or not a redundant employee's refusal of an offer of suitable alternative employment is reasonable, an employment tribunal is entitled to take into account the degree of suitability of the new job.

  • Date:
    28 May 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Pregnancy dismissal: Fertilised but non-implanted ova did not constitute pregnancy

    In Mayr v Bäckerei und Konditorei Gerhard Flockner OHG [2008] IRLR 387, the ECJ held that the protection afforded by the Pregnant Workers Directive against dismissal on grounds of pregnancy does not extend to a woman undergoing IVF treatment who was dismissed when in-vitro-fertilised ova existed but had not yet been transferred to her uterus. However, if she was dismissed essentially because she had undergone this advanced stage of IVF treatment, her dismissal would amount to direct sex discrimination contrary to the Equal Treatment Directive.

  • Date:
    9 May 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Dismissal: Expired disciplinary warnings do not have to be ignored for all purposes

    In Airbus UK Ltd v Webb [2008] IRLR 309, the Court of Appeal held that Diosynth Ltd v Thomson did not establish a rule of law that spent warnings must be ignored for all purposes. On the facts, where a spent warning was not part of the reason for the dismissal, but the basis for the employer's refusal to exercise leniency in respect of later gross misconduct, neither Diosynth nor the wording of s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 rendered the dismissal necessarily unfair.

About this topic

HR and legal information and guidance relating to dismissal.