An employment tribunal has held that an experienced employee should have appreciated the seriousness of breaching his employer's hygiene rules and it was appropriate for the employer to dismiss him.
The High Court held that the presence of commercial exit discussions between a football club and an assistant manager during which he stated that he was prepared to leave did not prevent the club from committing breach of contract. Gurpreet Duhra and Germaine Cowen-Machin explain this employment case, in which the High Court made an award of more than £330,000.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that there are no limitations on the nature and extent of the deficiencies in a first stage disciplinary procedure that can be cured by a thorough and effective appeal.
In Garamukanwa v Solent NHS Trust  IRLR 476 EAT, the EAT held that an employee who was dismissed for sending anonymous malicious emails to his former girlfriend could not rely on art.8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to prevent his employer from using evidence from his iPhone connecting him with the fake email addresses from which the messages were sent. Since the iPhone evidence had been supplied by the police following their investigations and with permission for it to be used, the tribunal had not erred in finding that the employer acted within the range of reasonable responses.
In Pendleton v Derbyshire County Council and another  IRLR 580 EAT, the EAT held that the dismissal of an Anglican Christian teacher who refused to leave her husband, who had been convicted and sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment for making indecent images of children and voyeurism, was unfair and indirect religion or belief discrimination.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that the "Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures" does not apply to dismissals for some other substantial reason (SOSR) due to a breakdown in working relationships.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that the "Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures" does not extend to dismissals on the ground of ill health.
In Metroline West Ltd v Ajaj; Ajaj v Metroline West Ltd EAT/0185/15 & EAT/0295/15, the EAT held that an employment tribunal erred in concluding that an employee was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed where the tribunal had wrongly substituted its view that the employee had not been capable of performing his role for the employer's actual reason for dismissal, which was the employee's dishonesty.
The High Court has held that an employer's email to its clients advising that a named employee had been dismissed for gross misconduct was not defamatory. The employer had a defence to libel because the statement was substantially true.
Updated to include information on Private Medicine Intermediaries Ltd v Hodkinson and others, in which the EAT upheld the finding of constructive dismissal in circumstances where the employer had raised performance concerns with an employee on sick leave.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to dismissal.