Topics

Unfair dismissal

New and updated

  • Date:
    1 August 1980
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Genower v Ealing, Hammersmith & Hounslow Area Health Authority

    In Genower v Ealing, Hammersmith & Hounslow Area Health Authority [1980] IRLR 297 EAT, the EAT held that the attempt by the respondent employers to change the appellant's job duties and place of work following a reorganisation, albeit a breach of contract which justified him in resigning and claiming that he had been dismissed within the meaning of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act, section 55(2)(c), was a dismissal for some other substantial reason and was reasonable in all the circumstances.

  • Date:
    1 March 1980
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Savage v J Sainsbury Ltd

    In Savage v J Sainsbury Ltd [1980] IRLR 109 CA, the Court of Appeal held that where a disciplinary procedure provides a right of appeal against dismissal and treats the employee as suspended without pay until the appeal is heard, the effective date of termination if the appeal is rejected is when the dismissal initially took effect and not when the appeal was rejected.

  • Date:
    1 January 1980
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Ford v Milthorn Toleman Ltd

    In Ford v Milthorn Toleman Ltd [1980] IRLR 30 CA, the Court of Appeal upheld the EAT's finding that an employee was entitled to claim constructive dismissal when, upon receiving his notice that he was to join a competitor, his employers removed his duties as a sales manager and proposed to change the basis of his remuneration.

  • Date:
    18 July 1979
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Unfair dismissal: When re-organisation is a substantial reason for dismissal

    The Court of Appeal held, in Hollister v National Farmers' Union, that Mr Hollister's dismissal for refusing to accept the terms of a re-organisation amounted to some other substantial reason for dismissal. And in Banerjee v City & East London AHA, the EAT overturned an Industrial Tribunal's decision that Mr Banerjee's dismissal from his post of part-time consultant surgeon following a decision to replace part-timers with full-timers was for some other substantial reason.

  • Date:
    1 May 1979
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Ladbroke Racing Ltd v Arnott and others

    In Ladbroke Racing Ltd v Arnott and others [1979] IRLR 192 EAT, the EAT held that the Industrial Tribunal was entitled to find that the respondent betting shop employees had been unfairly dismissed on grounds of placing bets on behalf of outside persons or condoning such bets, notwithstanding that the appellants' disciplinary rules specified that such conduct would result in immediate dismissal.

  • Date:
    7 March 1979
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Unfair dismissal: EAT sets out the test for a reasonable suspicion

    The correct approach to cases of suspected misconduct in general - and suspected dishonesty in particular - was set out last year by the EAT in British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell.

  • Date:
    1 November 1978
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Sutton & Gates (Luton) Ltd v Boxall

    In Sutton & Gates (Luton) Ltd v Boxall [1978] IRLR 486 EAT, the EAT held that the Industrial Tribunal had not erred in holding that the respondent employee's dismissal on grounds of lack of capability was unfair because he had not been given an opportunity to offer an explanation for his poor performance.

  • Date:
    25 October 1978
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Unfair dismissal: Dismissal for gross misconduct under company rules may not be fair

    Generally, dismissal of an employee for a single act of misconduct where the offence in question is specified as one that will result in dismissal under the company's disciplinary rules and procedure, is likely to result in a finding of fair dismissal. But, as Laws Stores Ltd v Oliphant shows, this will not always be so.

  • Date:
    1 October 1978
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    UBAF Bank Ltd v Davis

    In UBAF Bank Ltd v Davis [1978] IRLR 442 EAT, the EAT held that the employee was unfairly dismissed because he had never received a written warning of dismissal.

  • Date:
    25 January 1978
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Constructive dismissal: Correct test is based on law of contract

    In Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp, the Court of Appeal lays down the rule that in order to be able to resign and claim constructive dismissal within the meaning of para. 5(2)(c) of Schedule 1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, an employee must be able to show that the employer's conduct amounted to a significant breach of a fundamental term of the contract of employment or indicated that the employer no longer intended to be bound by the contract.

About this topic

HR and legal information and guidance relating to unfair dismissal.