The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employee who was dismissed for refusing to work because of health and safety concerns, even though his employer genuinely believed that there was no danger, could be automatically unfairly dismissed.
In Cavendish v Greater Manchester (South) Ltd (t/a Stagecoach Manchester), the Court of Appeal holds that the employment tribunal was correct to find that the employee - a bus driver who had made protected disclosures about health and safety - had been unfairly dismissed, but not automatically unfairly dismissed by reason of those disclosures.
A tribunal has decided in Gizbert v ABC News Intercontinental Inc that a foreign correspondent who did not want to cover war zones was unfairly dismissed for making a health and safety complaint.
In Candecca Resources Ltd v Bishop, the EAT holds that on a strict application of the statutory provisions, the purpose of a compensatory award is to compensate an applicant for actual out-of-pocket net loss suffered as a consequence of being unfairly dismissed.
In Wojcik v Amtico Co Ltd, the Employment Appeals Tribunal upholds a decision of the Birmingham industrial tribunal rejecting the appellant's claim that his employers had breached the relationship of trust and confidence between them by failing to disclose a safety report to him.
In Masiak v City Restaurants (UK) Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) holds that the right of employees to take appropriate steps to protect "other persons" from danger they believe to be serious and imminent can extend to members of the public.
The special statutory protection against dismissal afforded to trade-union-appointed safety representatives is, in the context of a redundancy selection exercise, "neutral", holds the EAT in Smiths Industries Aerospace and Defence Systems v Rawlings.
In Kerr v Nathan's Wastesavers Ltd, a dismissed employee's safety fear was honest but not reasonable.
In Kerr v Nathan's Wastesavers Ltd, the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's finding that an employee was not dismissed for one of the automatically unfair health and safety reasons.
In Baddeley v Mehta t/a Supascoop, an industrial tribunal holds that a new right to claim unfair dismissal on grounds of health and safety does not apply to an employee who had resigned.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to automatically unfair dismissals for health and safety reasons.