EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal
This judgment addresses only the issue as to whether the Employment Tribunal’s finding of automatically unfair dismissal was wrong in law. All other issues were adjourned.
The Employment Tribunal found that the Step 1 letter was insufficient because it did not inform the employee that he was at risk of dismissal. It was argued that the statutory procedure did not so require and that the conclusion to the opposite effect in Alexandra v Brigden [2006] ICR 1277 and HomeServe v Dixon 0122/07/CEA were obiter.
The court held that the conclusions, albeit obiter at least in Alexander, were correct and should be followed. The Tribunal’s decision was upheld.
Judges:
Burke QC J
Citations:
[2008] UKEAT 0294 – 08 – 2410
Links:
Statutes:
Citing:
Applied – Alexander and Hathersley v Bridgen Enterprises Ltd EAT 29-Mar-2006
The EAT considered the effect of an employer’s failure to comply with the statutory procedures in a redundancy.
Held: ‘there is an automatically unfair dismissal where there is a failure fully to comply with any relevant statutory procedure. . .
Cited – Homeserve Emergency Services Ltd v Dixon EAT 27-Jun-2007
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Procedural Fairness/Automatically unfair dismissal
Contributory Fault
Automatically unfair dismissal (ERA. s.98A (1). Whether step 1 and step 2 DDP complied with. Basic award; . .
Cited – YMCA Training v Stewart EAT 6-Dec-2006
EAT Unfair dismissal – Polkey deduction/ Automatically unfair reasons
Employment Tribunal wrong to find breaches of ‘step 1’ and ‘step 2’ of statutory dismissal procedure and accordingly wrong to find . .
Cited by:
See Also – Zimmer Ltd v Brezan EAT 3-Apr-2009
EAT 1. The employee put forward travel expenses claims for journeys for the purposes of his work but in his own car. On investigation the employers concluded that the details were false and the total claims . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.317879