Topics

Unfair dismissal

New and updated

  • Date:
    19 January 1988
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Dismissal: Refusal to hear grievance may amount to constructive dismissal

    In Elder v Clydebank Co-operative Society Ltd the EAT in Scotland orders a rehearing of a constructive dismissal complaint after an industrial tribunal failed to consider whether an employers' refusal to allow an employee to appeal against a decision to transfer her to another branch amounted to constructive dismissal.

  • Date:
    4 June 1985
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Transfer of undertakings: Changes in the workforce

    In Delabole Slate Ltd v Berriman the Court of Appeal upholds the EAT's decision that a dismissal which occurs as a consequence of a change in terms of employment following the transfer of an undertaking is not a dismissal for "an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce", and so is automatically unfair under reg.8(1) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

  • Date:
    21 August 1984
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Unfair dismissal: Grounds for appeal

    The EAT can overturn industrial tribunal decisions on the ground either that there has been an error of law, or that the decision was perverse. In Dobie v Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that these are alternative not cumulative reasons for allowing an appeal.

  • Date:
    19 October 1982
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Reasonableness: EAT reviews the test of reasonableness

    In Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones the EAT has reviewed the decisions on the test of reasonableness as required by s.57(3) of the EP(C)A. They stress the importance of considering the range of reasonable responses and warn against the test which states that a dismissal is unfair only if no sensible or reasonable employer could have arrived at that decision, as this approach could result in a misunderstanding of the law.

  • Date:
    1 July 1982
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Tayside Regional Council v McIntosh

    In Tayside Regional Council v McIntosh [1982] IRLR 272 EAT, the EAT held that a requirement for "qualifications" need not be expressly stated in a contract of employment, as it may be inferred from the job advertisement or from the nature of the job.

  • Date:
    1 April 1982
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Evans v Elemeta Holdings Ltd

    In Evans v Elemeta Holdings Ltd [1982] IRLR 143 EAT, the EAT emphasises that whether it is reasonable to dismiss an employee for refusing to accept a change in contractual terms depends upon whether it was reasonable for the employee to decline the terms. If it was reasonable for the employee to decline those terms, then it is unreasonable for the employer to dismiss the employee for such refusal.

  • Date:
    22 May 1981
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Capability: Alidair gross incompetence test limited

    The Court of Appeal's decision in Alidair Ltd v Taylor is authority for the proposition that there are circumstances in which an employee's incompetence can be so great that it is unnecessary to give him an opportunity to improve. The effect of the Court of Appeal's more recent decision in Inner London Education Authority v Lloyd, however, is to limit the application of the Alidair case. Rejecting an analogy of the case of Mr Lloyd, a probationary teacher, to that of Mr Taylor, an airline pilot, the Appeal Court points out that in Alidair the safety of a large number of people was involved.

  • Date:
    1 December 1980
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Gardiner v London Borough of Merton

    In Gardiner v London Borough of Merton [1980] IRLR 472 CA, the Court of Appeal held that where an individual leaves the employ of one authority and joins another he or she will lose all rights of continuity of employment except for those that may be provided for under the Redundancy Payments (Continuity of Employment etc) (Modification) Order 1999.

  • Date:
    1 December 1980
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Monie v Coral Racing Ltd

    In Monie v Coral Racing Ltd [1980] IRLR 464 CA, the Court of Appeal held that where an employer reasonably believes that one of two, or possibly both, employees are involved in dishonesty, but it is impossible for it to determine which of them is guilty, it may be reasonable to dismiss both of them, as long as the employer acts reasonably in all the circumstances of the case.

  • Date:
    7 October 1980
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Capability: Dismissal for intermittent sickness absence

    Where an employee is absent from work for a substantial period of time through illness it is well established that employers must take proper steps to ascertain the true medical position and, once this has been done, to consult with the employee before deciding whether or not to dismiss. However, as the EAT has recently emphasised in International Sports Co Ltd v Thomson and Rolls-Royce Ltd v Walpole, these principles are inappropriate where the employee is frequently absent as a result of unconnected minor ailments.

About this topic

HR and legal information and guidance relating to unfair dismissal.