Topics

Unfair dismissal

New and updated

  • Date:
    13 June 2007
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Unfair dismissal: Expired disciplinary warnings must be disregarded for all purposes

    In Airbus UK v Webb EAT/0453/06 the EAT has held that where an employee was dismissed for gross misconduct, but would not have been dismissed but for the fact that he had an expired final written warning on his record, the dismissal was unfair. The result of the expiry of the warning was that he was entitled to be treated as though he had no disciplinary record at all.

  • Date:
    13 June 2007
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Whistleblowing: Worker's 'reasonable belief' need not be factually correct

    In Babula v Waltham Forest College [2007] IRLR 346 the Court of Appeal held that to qualify for protection from detriment or dismissal for whistleblowing, a worker must hold a "reasonable belief" that the information disclosed tends to show that a criminal offence will be committed or that there will be non-compliance with a legal obligation.

  • Type:
    Employment law cases

    Case of the week: TUPE transfers

    This week's case of the week, provided by Covington & Burling, covers TUPE transfers.

  • Date:
    26 February 2007
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Fixed-term contracts: Reinstatement after appeal does not extend fixed-term contract beyond original expiry date

    In Prakash v Wolverhampton City Council EAT/0140/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that where a fixed-term contractor's dismissal for misconduct was overturned by an appeal decided after the expiry date of the contract, the effect of the successful appeal was to reinstate the terms of the original contract. It could not extend the life of the contract beyond its expiry date.

  • Date:
    16 February 2007
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Unfair dismissal compensation: Norton Tool not general authority for awarding more than actual loss

    In Burlo v Langley and another [2006] EWCA Civ 1778 the Court of Appeal holds that an employee's compensation for lack of notice was restricted to her actual loss where she would have been in receipt of statutory sick pay during the notice period.

  • Date:
    14 February 2007
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Metrobus Ltd v Cook

    In Metrobus Ltd v Cook EAT/0490/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that an employment tribunal did not err in increasing the amount of unfair dismissal compensation by 40% where an employer had failed to follow the statutory disciplinary and dismissal procedure.

  • Date:
    2 February 2007
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    TUPE case law update

    This article looks at some of the important judgments in the area of the transfer of undertakings over the past year.

  • Date:
    19 January 2007
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Unfair dismissal: Covert recordings of disciplinary panel's private deliberations inadmissible

    In Chairman and Governors of Amwell View School v Dogherty EAT/0243/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that an employment tribunal was not entitled to admit as evidence in unfair dismissal proceedings recordings of a disciplinary panel's private deliberations.

  • Date:
    29 December 2006
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Transfer of undertakings: 'ETO' defence does not apply to harmonisation involving no workforce changes

    In London Metropolitan University v Sackur and others EAT/0286/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that standardisation of employees' terms is not of itself sufficient to give rise to an ETO defence.

  • Date:
    1 December 2006
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Unfair dismissal/disability discrimination: Procedural flaws in disciplinary process not cured only by rehearing

    In Taylor v OCS Group Ltd [2006] IRLR 613 CA, the Court of Appeal holds that defects in the conduct of a disciplinary hearing are capable of being "cured" in an internal appeal even if it does not amount to a full rehearing of the issue. In addition, a deaf employee not given the opportunity to have an interpreter at his disciplinary hearing was not treated less favourably for a reason related to his disability.