Dismissal
In Dunnachie v Kingston-upon-Hull City Council, the House of Lords holds that Lord Hoffman's comments in Johnson were obiter and, therefore, did not prevent the House of Lords from finding that unfair dismissal compensation should be restricted to economic losses only.
In Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers' Centre, the Court of Appeal holds that an employment tribunal had been correct to find that an employee's "whistleblowing" disclosure was not made in good faith because, although she believed her allegations to be true and did not make the disclosure for personal gain, her motivation for making it was personal antagonism towards the subject of the disclosure.
In Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle [2004] IRLR 703 CA, the Court of Appeal held that putting an employee who was off sick for a disability-related reason on to half pay after a period of full pay was unjustified less favourable treatment where the employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments, which, had they been made, would have resulted in the employee's returning to work before she became liable to have her sick pay reduced.
In Hardy v Polk (Leeds) Ltd [2004] IRLR 420 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an employee who is dismissed without notice or pay in lieu of notice is under a duty to mitigate his or her loss in respect of the notice period, and that earnings received from another employer during the (nominal) notice period must be offset against the compensatory award.
In Susie Radin v GMB and others [2004] IRLR 400 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the employment tribunal had not erred in making a protective award for the maximum period of 90 days in respect of the employers' failure to consult with the union over a proposal to close a factory and dismiss all employees as redundant, notwithstanding the tribunal's finding in relation to the employees' claims of unfair dismissal that, in those circumstances, consultation would have been futile.
In Harper v Virgin Net Ltd the Court of Appeal holds under s.97(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, where an employee is summarily dismissed, that employee's effective date of termination ("EDT") is only extended to the end of the statutory notice period to which he or she would have been entitled, and not to the end of their contractual notice period.
In Dunnachie v Kingston upon Hull City Council, the Court of Appeal holds that the comments by Lord Hoffmann in Johnson v Unisys, to the effect that the interpretation of (what is now) s.123 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 given in Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson was too narrow in limiting unfair dismissal compensation to economic losses, were obiter and did not bind the Court in the present case.
In Virgo Fidelis School v Boyle [2004] IRLR 268 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that awards of compensation for injury to feelings in whistleblowing cases should be based on the guidelines set out by the Court of Appeal in Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2003] IRLR 102 for race and sex discrimination cases.
In Visa International Service Association v Paul the EAT holds that an employment tribunal was correct to find that an employee was constructively dismissed when her employer failed to notify her, while she was on maternity leave, of a newly created post arising out of a reorganisation in her department in which the employee was interested, and considered herself well qualified for.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to dismissal.