What were the most significant employment case law decisions in 2016? Stephen Simpson counts down the 10 most important judgments for employers this year.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that an employment tribunal failed to consider whether or not the "perfunctory" and "insensitive" nature of a long-serving employee's redundancy consultation made his dismissal unfair.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that where an employee is dismissed for misconduct following an earlier warning that the tribunal has found to be manifestly inappropriate, the tribunal must examine the weight the employer attached to that warning in deciding whether or not the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses.
An employment tribunal has held that the employer fairly dismissed an employee who failed to produce evidence of his right to work in the UK.
This employment tribunal held that an employer fairly dismissed an employee who refused to do overtime as required under her contract of employment and whose protests at being asked to do so caused discontent among her fellow workers.
In Phoenix House Ltd v Stockman and another  IRLR 848 EAT, the EAT held that, while the "Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures" did have some application to elements of a "some other substantial reason" dismissal, it was not appropriate to apply the uplift in compensation for unfair dismissal in such a case.
In Holmes v Qinetiq Ltd  IRLR 664 EAT, the EAT held the "Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures" has no application where an employer does not allege culpable conduct by an employee. Accordingly, no uplift to compensation under s.207A of TULR(C)A could be applied where the employee was unfairly dismissed on ill-health grounds.
Updated to include a reference to illegal working closure notices and compliance orders, introduced from 1 December 2016.
In DLA Piper's latest case report, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) confirmed that the Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures does not apply to dismissals on the ground of ill health where there is no element of culpability on the part of the employee.
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.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to the fairness of the reason for dismissal.