The management introduced a new machine. The appellants left the premises and did not return. They were dismissed. They now appealed a finding that they had not been unfairly dismissed.
Held: The appeal failed. Whether the employer had through his behaviour contributed to the industrial action was not relevant.
Judges:
Phillips J P
Citations:
[1976] UKEAT 24 – 76 – 1404, [1976] IRLR 308, [1976] ICR 336, [1976] 3 All ER 384
Links:
Statutes:
Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974
Citing:
Cited – Heath and Another v JP Longman (Meat Salesman) Limited 1973
Sir Hugh Griffiths said: ‘It appears to this Court that the manifest overall purpose of Section 26 is to give a measure of protection to an employer if his business is faced with ruin by a strike. It enables him in those circumstances, if he cannot . .
Cited – Lomax v Ladbroke Racing Limited 1975
The employees sought recognition for their union, and in furtherance of that went on strike. They were dismissed. The employers appealed a finding that they had been wrongly dismissed.
Held: The actual reason for the dismissals was not the . .
Cited – Sanders and Others v Ernest A Neale Limited NIRC 5-Jul-1974
The applicants appealed dismissal of their claims for redundancy payments.
Held: The Court considered the time of acceptance by an employee of an employer’s repudiatory actions. Sir John Donaldson P set out the principle which he regarded as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248968
