Warnings

New and updated

  • Misconduct: Aggravating factors justified disparity of treatment

    Date:
    15 June 1996
    Type:
    Law reports

    An employee was fairly dismissed for misconduct even though another employee who was guilty of the same conduct was treated differently and given a final written warning, holds the EAT in London Borough of Harrow v Cunningham.

  • Misconduct: Ambiguous written warning interpreted against employer

    Date:
    1 April 1995
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Bevan Ashford v Malin, the EAT holds that a final written warning to an employee, which stated that it would remain on his personal file for a period of 12 months from the date of the warning, should be construed strictly against the employer.

  • Misconduct: Previous warning did not justify dismissal without investigation

    Date:
    1 August 1994
    Type:
    Law reports

    An employer which dismissed an employee after an altercation on the shop floor acted unreasonably because it had not fully investigated the circumstances, but had jumped to the conclusion that the employee was guilty of misconduct, holds the EAT in FMU Ltd v Sutheran.

About this topic

HR and legal information and guidance relating to warnings as a disciplinary penalty.