-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In this case, an employee was fairly dismissed for disclosing details of job applicant.
-
- Date:
- 13 October 2009
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Central & North West London NHS Foundation Trust v Abimbola EAT/0542/08, the EAT held that the employment tribunal had wrongly excluded highly relevant factors from its consideration of whether or not it was practicable to order reinstatement following a finding of unfair dismissal.
-
- Date:
- 8 September 2009
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Sehmi v Gate Gourmet London Ltd; Sandhu and others v Gate Gourmet London Ltd EAT/0264/08 & EAT/0265/08, the EAT held that, while the withdrawal by an employee of his or her labour will not necessarily justify dismissal, in a situation where large numbers of employees deliberately absent themselves from work in a manner that is liable to do serious damage to the employer's business, dismissal of those taking part in the action will be reasonable, even where the absence is not prolonged.
-
- Date:
- 7 August 2009
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employer did not unfairly dismiss an employee when it failed to investigate in detail the nature of his misconduct in circumstances where he had admitted his guilt.
-
- Type:
- FAQs
-
- Type:
- How to
Practical guidance on handling gross misconduct dismissals, including which offences amount to gross misconduct; suspension during investigation; criminal proceedings; and the disciplinary hearing.
-
- Type:
- Letters and forms
A model letter to confirm a dismissal on the ground of misconduct following a series of warnings and a disciplinary meeting.
-
- Type:
- Letters and forms
A model letter to confirm a summary dismissal on the ground of gross misconduct following a disciplinary meeting.
-
- Date:
- 16 October 2008
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employee's admission of gross misconduct limited the need for a detailed investigation by her employer prior to dismissal.
-
- Date:
- 9 May 2008
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Airbus UK Ltd v Webb [2008] IRLR 309, the Court of Appeal held that Diosynth Ltd v Thomson did not establish a rule of law that spent warnings must be ignored for all purposes. On the facts, where a spent warning was not part of the reason for the dismissal, but the basis for the employer's refusal to exercise leniency in respect of later gross misconduct, neither Diosynth nor the wording of s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 rendered the dismissal necessarily unfair.