Dismissal
In Atkins v Coyle Personnel plc EAT/0206/07, the EAT held that, for an employee to claim successfully that his dismissal was related to the fact that he had taken paternity leave, there must be a causal link between the dismissal and the leave.
This article looks at some of the important judgments in the area of the transfer of undertakings over the past year.
In Hutchins v Permacell Finesse Ltd (in administration) EAT/0350/07, the EAT held that the starting point for determining a protective award is 90 days' pay, even where fewer than 100 redundancies are involved and the minimum consultation period is 30 days.
In Shaw v CCL Ltd EAT/0512/06, the EAT held that an employee whose request to work part time on her return from maternity leave was refused had been constructively unfairly dismissed.
In Klusova v London Borough of Hounslow [2007] EWCA Civ 1127, the Court of Appeal upheld a finding of unfair dismissal in the case of an employee who was dismissed on the grounds that she was no longer entitled to work in the UK. There was evidence to support the tribunal's finding that the employee was, in fact, legally entitled to work in the UK at the time of her dismissal. While the employer's mistaken belief about her immigration status was capable of amounting to "some other substantial reason" for dismissal, the fact that the employer had failed to follow the statutory dismissal procedure rendered the dismissal automatically unfair.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that, in the circumstances of the case, the issue of disparate treatment did not arise when an employee was dismissed but another was not disciplined.
In Jackson v Computershare Investor Services plc [2007] EWCA Civ 1065, the Court of Appeal ruled that the provision in the TUPE Regulations to the effect that a transferred contract of employment will have effect after the transfer as if originally made between the employee and the transferee could not be construed so as to give the employee a contractual benefit to which she had not been entitled under her original contract.
A review of a number of recent employment tribunal decisions suggests that some employers remain unaware of the implications of, or are struggling with, the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1031), which became law on 1 October 2006. The decisions also demonstrate the approach that the tribunals might take to the question of justification of discrimination and to the assessment of injury to feelings compensation.
In Corus UK Ltd v Mainwaring EAT/0053/07, the EAT held that an employer did not act unreasonably when it failed to interview an informant who alleged that a fellow employee was malingering, as that allegation merely triggered a fair investigation. In addition, it was not necessary for the employer to seek medical evidence from a specialist consultant, it being reasonable for it to rely on evidence about the employee's medical condition from a GP.
In UK Coal Mining Ltd v (1) National Union of Mineworkers (Northumberland Area) (2) The British Association of Colliery Management EAT/0397/06 & EAT/0141/07, the EAT held that the duty to consult about ways of "avoiding" redundancies inevitably involves consultation about the reasons behind the proposed dismissals and, contrary to previous authority, is not limited to consultation about how the redundancies are to be effected.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to dismissal.