-
- Date:
- 21 March 2018
- Type:
- Commentary and insights
Consultant editor Darren Newman considers a recent case in which the Supreme Court judges seemed to cast doubt on the long-established approach to misconduct dismissals set out in Burchell.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Really Easy Car Credit Ltd v Thompson, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the appeal and held that the employer was not obliged to revisit its decision to dismiss when it became aware that the employee was pregnant.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In NHS 24 v Pillar EAT/0051/16, the EAT held that the inclusion in an investigative report of details about previous conduct in respect of which no disciplinary action was taken did not render a misconduct dismissal unfair.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti [2018] IRLR 251 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the motivation of a manager who manipulated evidence to procure the dismissal of a whistleblowing employee could not be attributed to the employer, as the decision to dismiss was taken by a manager who was not motivated by the employee's protected disclosures.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Royal Surrey County NHS Foundation Trust v Drzymala, the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered the fairness of an employee's dismissal by her employer's decision not to renew her fixed-term contract, including the effect of the employer's compliance with the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has remitted to an employment tribunal the issue of whether or not a Jamaican national with the "right of abode" was fairly dismissed after he did not provide the required documentation during his employer's audit of its workforce's right to work in the UK.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The Court of Appeal has held that a claimant cannot succeed in a whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim where the decision-maker was unaware of the protected disclosure at the time of the decision to dismiss.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that including details of previous non-disciplinary incidents in the investigation report did not make the dismissal unfair.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that, on the particular facts, the employee's dismissal for 20 months' unauthorised absence was unfair.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that, in a conduct dismissal, an employer must establish that the reason or principal reason for the dismissal relates to conduct, and not that the conduct itself is culpable.