Topics

Unfair 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:
    7 August 2009
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Manor Oak (PMG) Ltd v Kelly

    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

    What are the likely ramifications for the employer if an employee succeeds in a claim of unfair dismissal?

  • Date:
    12 December 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Unfair dismissal: Unambiguous resignation is nearly always effective

    In Ali v Birmingham City Council EAT/0313/08, the EAT held that an employee's unambiguous resignation was effective and could not be unilaterally withdrawn once it had been accepted by the employer. It is only in exceptional circumstances that words of resignation should not be taken at their face value

  • 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:
    16 October 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Community Integrated Care Ltd v Smith

    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:
    16 September 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    TUPE: Objection to transfer not valid

    In Capita Health Solutions v McLean and another [2008] IRLR 595, the EAT held that an employee's objection to becoming employed by the transferee did not have the effect of preventing the transfer of her contract of employment, as she had undertaken work for the transferee after the transfer date.

  • Date:
    30 June 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Whistleblowing: Burden of proof

    In Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] IRLR 530, the Court of Appeal held that, having rejected the potentially fair reason for dismissal put forward by the employer, the tribunal was not obliged to accept the automatically unfair reason put forward by the employee. It was entitled to find that the employer had at least proved that this was not the reason for dismissal.

  • 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:
    9 May 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Dismissal: Expired disciplinary warnings do not have to be ignored for all purposes

    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.

About this topic

HR and legal information and guidance relating to unfair dismissal.