Misconduct dismissals

New and updated

• Type:

  Employment law cases

  Disclosing misconduct

  Are employees, senior or otherwise, under a duty to disclose the misconduct of colleagues or themselves to their employer? Tony Thompson and Rebecca Peedell look at recent cases.

• Date:

  24 December 2004

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Fiduciary duties: Director's duty to disclose own misconduct

  In Item Software (UK) Ltd v Fassihi and others the Court of Appeal holds that a company director has a fiduciary duty to disclose his own misconduct and to account for secret profits.

• Date:

  12 November 2004

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Unfair dismissal: Employers must take care in framing disciplinary charges

  In Strouthos v London Underground Ltd the Court of Appeal holds that the EAT was incorrect to infer an employee's dishonesty from the facts found by the tribunal, when dishonesty had not been alleged in the original disciplinary proceedings.

• Type:

  FAQs

  Is it permissible to dismiss an employee on the grounds of misconduct that occurred outside the workplace?

• Date:

  6 February 2004

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Unfair dismissal: Dismissing probation officer for public bondage acts did not violate human rights

  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.

• Date:

  31 December 2003

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Fraser v Stolt Offshore Ltd

  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.

• Date:

  7 March 2003

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Unfair dismissal: "Band of reasonable responses" test applies to reasonableness of investigation into misconduct

  In Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt, the Court of Appeal emphasises that the "band of reasonable responses" test applies to the question of the reasonableness of an employer's investigations into alleged misconduct, as it does to other procedural and substantive aspects of the decision to dismiss.

• Date:

  31 December 2002

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Ngengfack v London Borough of Southwark

  In Ngengfack v London Borough of Southwark [2002] EWCA Civ 711 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employee who had been seen working in the hairdressing salon that she owned while on sick leave from her teaching job had been fairly dismissed.

• Type:

  Employment law cases

  On appeal: drugs policies and misconduct

  Continuing our series on the implications of recent significant cases, Hugh Calloway, associate solicitor in the commercial litigation department at Glanvilles Solicitors looks at issues surrounding some employment-related disputes. This week: drugs policies and misconduct.

• Type:

  Employment law cases

  Case roundup: Unfair dismissal and redundancy

  This week's case roundup, covering unfair dismissal and redundancy procedures laid down in collective agreements.