-
- Date:
- 11 March 2002
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Parkins v Sodexho Ltd, the EAT holds that a protected disclosure for the purposes of s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996 can relate to a breach of the employee's own contract of employment.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The Court of Appeal gives important guidance on how far tribunals need to go in exploring the circumstances of a claim. Plus cases on protected disclosure, redundancy selection, discrimination by an agent, working time exemptions and constructive dismissal.
-
- Type:
- FAQs
-
- Type:
- FAQs
-
- Date:
- 1 January 2000
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The principal reason for the dismissal of a transferor's employees, purportedly on the grounds of redundancy, was the impending transfer of the undertaking, holds the EAT in Kerry Foods Ltd v Creber and others.
-
- Date:
- 15 November 1998
- Type:
- Employment law cases
Employees who are dismissed by the transferor of an undertaking, and then re-engaged by the transferee on different but agreed terms, are not entitled to retain the benefit of their previous terms of employment, holds the House of Lords in Wilson and others v St Helens Borough Council and Baxendale and Meade v British Fuels Ltd.
-
- Date:
- 15 April 1998
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Caledonia Bureau Investment & Property v Caffrey, the EAT holds that the automatically unfair dismissal provision which protects a woman against dismissal for a reason "connected with her pregnancy" is not limited to dismissals occurring during the period of pregnancy and maternity leave.
-
- Date:
- 1 December 1997
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Goodwin v Cabletel UK Ltd [1997] IRLR 665 EAT, the EAT held that the industrial tribunal had erred in holding that the dismissal of the appellant "designated employee" could not fall within the protection against dismissal for carrying out activities in connection with preventing or reducing risks to health and safety at work provided by the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act because it was the way in which he carried out his health and safety activities, rather than the actual doing of them, which led to his dismissal.
-
- Date:
- 1 November 1997
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Mennell v Newell & Wright (Transport Contractors) Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that an employee may have the right not to be unfairly dismissed for asserting a relevant statutory right even though the employer has not actually infringed that right.
-
- Date:
- 15 October 1997
- Type:
- Employment law cases
Where a safety representative claims that he or she was subjected to a detriment for performing functions as an acknowledged health and safety representative, it is no defence for the employer to argue that the representative intended to embarrass the company in front of the external safety authorities or performed those functions in an unreasonable way unacceptable to the employer, holds the EAT in Shillito v Van Leer (UK) Ltd.