Dismissal
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.
In Pay v Lancashire Probation Service, the EAT holds that a probation officer with specific responsibility for sex offenders, who was publicly engaged in sadomasochistic activities in his spare time, did not have his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights breached when he was dismissed upon discovery of those activities.
In Solectron Scotland Ltd v Roper and others [2004] IRLR 4 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment tribunal did not err in finding that enhanced redundancy terms over and above what was paid to the applicants on their dismissal, which formed part of their contracts of employment with their previous employer, BT, and to which they were entitled by virtue of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 1981, had not been removed by custom or practice.
In Fraser v Stolt Offshore Ltd [2003] All ER (D) 185 (Apr) EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an employer can issue a warning to a fixed-term employee that will be valid for a longer period than the fixed-term contract. The warning will carry over into the next contract and the employee does not have to be notified of this when he accepts the next contract.
In Dewhirst Group v GMB Trade Union, the EAT affirms that the statutory duty under UK law to consult with employee representatives in relation to collective redundancies is triggered at the point at which a "proposal" to dismiss employees is made.
This week's case round-up from Eversheds: covering whistleblowing.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to dismissal.