The claimant appealed against a finding that he had not been unfairly dismissed. He said that the procedure adopted had been unfair, since he had not had opportunity to see the statements provided to his employer by independent witnesses of the incident under complaint. Held: It can be enough in a disciplinary case for an … Continue reading Hussain v Elonex Plc: CA 17 Mar 1999
The failure to comply with the right to have three councillors to hear an appeal was breach of the employers procedure, but the dismissal remained fair. The non-compliance did not itself and necessarily make the procedure unfair. Citations: Times 08-May-1996, Gazette 10-Jul-1996 Statutes: Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 57(3) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Employment Updated: … Continue reading Westminster City Council v Cabaj: CA 8 May 1996
Just and equitable – selection for redundancy Judges: Morion J Citations: [1994] UKEAT 256 – 94 – 1807 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 57(3) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Employment Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.210064
EAT The EAT upheld an industrial tribunal’s finding that by unilaterally varying the employee’s job description the employer was in fundamental breach of contract, entitling the employee to resign in accordance with the Sharp contract test. However, in dismissing the employee’s appeal the Tribunal also upheld the industrial tribunal’s further findings that the employer had … Continue reading Genower v Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow AHA: EAT 1980
Where there had been defects in the procedure adopted at a disciplinary hearing, an appeal which was restricted to a review and was not a rehearing could not remedy the defects of the original hearing. As to the case of Calvin v Carr: ‘Ultimately, an industrial tribunal has to answer the question whether the dismissal … Continue reading Whitbread and Co plc v Mills: EAT 1988
Redundancy decision without consultation where ‘no difference’ was found, and there was no alternative, was not unfair. Judges: Balcombe LJ Citations: Independent 15-Jul-1994, Times 26-Jul-1994, [1995] ICR 1 Statutes: Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 57(3) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Appeal from – Duffy v Yeomans and Partners Ltd EAT 7-Apr-1993 . . Cited – … Continue reading Duffy v Yeoman and Partners Ltd: CA 15 Jul 1994
The applicants were four of 20 employees selected for redundancy. One complaint was that, although they had been given details of their own marks, they were no allowed to see the ratings for others; another was that the supervisors responsible for the markings were insufficiently informed to make fair assessments. These complaints were upheld by … Continue reading King and Others v Eaton Ltd: IHCS 1 Feb 1995
The absence of any other explanation for the unfair dismissal of a black worker, does not of itself and inescapably lead to finding of race bias, or racial discrimination. He had been dismissed following complaints of sexual harassment, later found to be unsupported. The tribunal reasoned that the dismissal was to be presumed to be … Continue reading Strathclyde Regional Council v Zafar; Zafar v Glasgow City Council: HL 16 Oct 1997
Mr Polkey was employed as a driver. The company decided to replace four van drivers with two van salesmen and a representative. Mr Polkey and two other van drivers were made redundant. Without warning, he was called in and informed that he had been made redundant, given a redundancy letter setting out the payments due … Continue reading Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited: HL 19 Nov 1987
The employee was summarily dismissed by the night production foreman for missing a night shift immediately before taking his annual leave. The personnel officer told the employee about his right of appeal; but the employee decided not to appeal as he did not think there was any point in doing so. The following week the … Continue reading Hoover Ltd v Forde: 1980
The employee was dismissed on refusing to accept new terms and conditions which were proposed to bring into line the terms and conditions of employees in their original business with those of employees, including the claimant, of another business taken over by the employers. The proposed new terms were financially and otherwise to his detriment. … Continue reading Richmond Precision Engineering Ltd v Pearce: EAT 1985