Dismissal
In Chairman and Governors of Amwell View School v Dogherty EAT/0243/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that an employment tribunal was not entitled to admit as evidence in unfair dismissal proceedings recordings of a disciplinary panel's private deliberations.
In London Metropolitan University v Sackur and others EAT/0286/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that standardisation of employees' terms is not of itself sufficient to give rise to an ETO defence.
In Taylor v OCS Group Ltd [2006] IRLR 613 CA, the Court of Appeal holds that defects in the conduct of a disciplinary hearing are capable of being "cured" in an internal appeal even if it does not amount to a full rehearing of the issue. In addition, a deaf employee not given the opportunity to have an interpreter at his disciplinary hearing was not treated less favourably for a reason related to his disability.
In Scope v Thornett [2007] IRLR 155 CA, the Court of Appeal has stressed that employment tribunals are permitted to make reductions in the amount of compensation awarded for future loss of earnings where this involves speculation.
In Bolton School v Evans [2007] IRLR 140 CA, the Court of Appeal has held that protection against a detriment for making a protected disclosure does not extend to dismissal for conduct that is designed to demonstrate that the belief in the wrongdoing is reasonable.
In Adeneler and others v Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos [2006] IRLR 716 the European Court of Justice has held that the objective reasons justifying the use of successive fixed-term contracts must relate to the particular employment in question.
In Lawson v Serco Ltd; Botham v Ministry of Defence; Crofts and others v Veta Ltd and others [2006] IRLR 289 HL, the House of Lords holds that employees will be entitled to claim unfair dismissal if working or based in Great Britain at the time of the dismissal. An employee posted abroad but retaining a strong connection with Great Britain may also be able to bring a claim.
In McCormack v Sanmina SCI UK Ltd [2006] All ER (D) 138 (Jul) EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that redundancy dismissals that were procedurally unfair due to a lack of proper consultation were also unfair because of the employer's inconsistent approach to the assessment of willingness to work overtime and employees' skills range.
In Alexander and another v Bridgen Enterprises Ltd [2006] IRLR 422 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that two employees were automatically unfairly dismissed in breach of the statutory dismissal procedure because the employer had not provided sufficient information about their selection for redundancy in advance of the dismissal meeting.
In Leicestershire County Council v Unison [2006] IRLR 810 CA, the Court of Appeal holds that a tribunal was entitled to make the maximum protective award in respect of a group of employees who had been dismissed and offered new terms without consultation with the relevant unions.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to dismissal.