Unfair dismissal

New and updated

• Date:

  1 September 1997

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Jones v F Sirl & Son (Furnishers) Ltd

  In Jones v F Sirl & Son (Furnishers) Ltd [1997] IRLR 493 EAT, the EAT held that in deciding whether an employee left employment in consequence of a fundamental breach of contract by the employer, the industrial tribunal must determine whether the repudiatory breach was "the effective cause" of the resignation. It does not have to be the sole cause.

• Date:

  1 May 1997

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Redundancy: Fair redundancy selection based on absence records

  In deciding the fairness of a redundancy selection criterion based on employees' absence records, an industrial tribunal may consider whether the employer took account of the reasons for a particular employee's absence only as one of the factors to be considered in the circumstances of the case, and not as the conclusive factor, the EAT holds in Byrne v Castrol (UK) Ltd.

• Date:

  1 May 1997

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Redundancy: Individual consultation not a prerequisite for fair dismissal

  In Mugford v Midland Bank plc, the EAT reviews the current situation regarding redundancy consultation in the context of unfair dismissal, observing that consultation with the trade union over selection criteria does not of itself obviate the need for individual consultation.

• Date:

  1 May 1997

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Qualifying period to ECJ

  In R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Seymour-Smith and Perez (13 March 1997) EOR73A, the House of Lords refers questions to the European Court of Justice relating to whether the increase in the qualifying period for bringing a complaint of unfair dismissal from one to two years indirectly discriminated against women contrary to European Community law.

• Date:

  15 April 1997

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Redundancy: New three-stage test for redundancy

  In Safeway Stores plc v Burrell, the EAT rejects both the "contract test" and the "function test" for determining whether an employee was dismissed by reason of redundancy.

• Date:

  15 March 1997

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Unfair dismissal remedies: All termination payments deducted before "Polkey reduction"

  In Digital Equipment Co Ltd v Clements (No.2), the EAT holds that, in calculating the compensatory award for unfair dismissal, any termination payment the employee received from the employer should be deducted from his or her loss caused by the dismissal before reducing that net loss by the percentage chance, if any, that he or she would have been retained had the employer acted fairly.

• Date:

  15 March 1997

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Redundancy: "Sham" appeal process rendered selection unfair

  An assessment system under which employees were selected for redundancy without individual consultation on the basis of undisclosed marks awarded by their employer gave employees no meaningful opportunity to challenge the decisions made, holds the EAT in John Brown Engineering Ltd v Brown and others.

• Date:

  1 January 1997

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Misconduct: Drunken employees were unfairly dismissed

  In Williams and others v Whitbread Beer Co the Court of Appeal restores the decision of an industrial tribunal that an employer unfairly dismissed three employees for drunken, abusive and violent behaviour in circumstances where the misconduct took place outside work and where it was the employer who had provided the opportunity for the employees to drink.

• Date:

  1 December 1996

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Selkent Bus Co Ltd t/a Stagecoach Selkent v Moore

  In Selkent Bus Co Ltd t/a Stagecoach Selkent v Moore [1996] IRLR 661 EAT, the EAT set out guidance to industrial tribunals on the criteria to take into account in deciding whether to grant leave for amendment of an originating application.

• Date:

  1 November 1996

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Redundancy: Relevance of "Compair Maxam guidelines"

  In Akzo Coatings plc v Thompson and others, the EAT holds that an industrial tribunal erred in law in applying the guidelines on redundancy selection in Williams and others v Compair Maxam Ltd to the way in which an employer dealt with the possibility of alternative employment for redundant employees.