Unfair dismissal
A unilateral increase in hours of work without consultation constituted a breach of contract entitling employees to resign and claim constructive dismissal, the EAT holds in Humphreys & Glasgow Ltd v Broom and Holt*.
In Hooper v British Railways Board [1988] IRLR 517 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the terms of a negotiated agreement, which provided that a member of staff who was declared fit by his own doctor but did not meet the medical standards required by the Board's doctor "shall be paid the basic rate of pay appropriate to his grade until such time as he resumes work either in his own post or on other suitable work", meant that the employee had a contractual right to be kept on full pay until such time as he was redeployed or reached retirement age.
In Courtaulds Northern Spinning Ltd v Sibson the Court of Appeal considers whether the transfer of an employee, a heavy goods vehicle driver, from one depot to a depot one mile away breached the employee's contract of employment.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to unfair dismissal.