Topics

Constructive dismissal

New and updated

  • Date:
    26 August 2009
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Unfair dismissal: Range of reasonable responses test of no application in establishing constructive dismissal

    In Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation v Buckland EAT/0492/08, the EAT held that the well-established contractual test for determining whether or not constructive dismissal has occurred should not be embellished by the introduction of the range of reasonable responses test, a concept that is properly confined to the law of unfair dismissal. In doing so, it declined to follow the EAT decisions in Abbey National plc v Fairbrother and Claridge v Daler Rowney Ltd.

  • Date:
    3 November 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Constructive dismissal: Handling of grievance procedure is subject to the range of reasonable responses test

    In Claridge v Daler Rowney Ltd [2008] IRLR 672, the EAT held that, although it is for the tribunal to determine whether or not an employer has committed a repudiatory breach of contract, the employer's handling of the grievance procedure will amount to such a breach only where it fell outside the range of reasonable responses open to the employer.

  • 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:
    25 February 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Sex discrimination: Discriminatory act amounted to constructive dismissal

    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.

  • Date:
    21 July 2006
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Constructive dismissal: No written contract but employee entitled to full sick pay

    In Secession Ltd t/a Freud v Bellingham EAT/0069/05, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that the tribunal was entitled to imply a term to the effect that an employee with no written contract had the right to be paid in full during periods of sickness absence.

  • Type:
    Employment law cases

    Case round-up: Constructive dismissal compensation and injury to feelings award

    This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering: constructive dismissal compensation; and injury to feelings awards.

  • Date:
    24 March 2006
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Public interest disclosure: Compensation for whistleblower's detriment to date of dismissal

    In Melia v Magna Kansei Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that where an employee has been subjected to detriment for having made a protected disclosure and then resigned claiming constructive dismissal, compensation for injured feelings should be assessed over the entire period up to the date of termination.

  • Date:
    16 December 2005
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Constructive dismissal: Job description not sole determinant of duties

    In Land Securities Trilium Ltd v Thornley, the EAT holds that, when deciding whether there has been a change in job duties, the tribunal may look not only at how the duties were described in the employee's original job description, but also at the actual work she had been given.

  • Type:
    Employment law cases

    Case round-up

    Joe Glavina and Emma Slark at Addleshaw Goddard bring you a comprehensive update on the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and provide advice on what to do about them.

  • Date:
    28 October 2005
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Constructive dismissal: Failure to conduct proper risk assessment can be repudiatory breach

    In Bunning v G T Bunning & Sons Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that the tribunal was correct to find the employer in breach of its obligation to carry out a risk assessment for a pregnant worker under reg.16 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.