Unfair dismissal
Consultant editor Darren Newman explains how the difference between the test of reasonableness in relation to unfair dismissal and the test for justification in relation to "discrimination arising from disability" led to an interesting - and important - Court of Appeal decision.
In Reilly v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, the Supreme Court held that a head teacher was fairly dismissed for failing to disclose her association with a convicted sex offender.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to unfair dismissal.