Topics

Capability or qualifications dismissals

New and updated

  • Type:
    FAQs

    When is it permissible for an employer to terminate the contract of an employee on the grounds of ill health?

  • Date:
    1 November 2000
    Type:
    Law reports

    Unfair dismissal: Categorisation of employer's reason for dismissal is question of legal analysis

    To determine under which of the categories of potentially fair reasons for dismissal the reason given by an employer comes is a question of legal analysis, holds the Court of Appeal in Wilson v Post Office.

  • Date:
    1 November 1999
    Type:
    Law reports

    Reason for dismissal: Attendance procedure dismissal was for "some other substantial reason" than capability

    An employment tribunal erred in law in finding that the reason for an employee's dismissal in accordance with a collectively agreed attendance procedure was a reason related to his capability, holds the EAT in The Post Office v Wilson.

  • Date:
    31 December 1995
    Type:
    Law reports

    Steelprint Ltd v Haynes

    In Steelprint Ltd v Haynes EAT/467/95, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the dismissal of an employee after the employer had restructured her job but failed to provide training in the new skills required was unfair.

  • Date:
    1 January 1995
    Type:
    Law reports

    Ill health: No need for individual diagnosis in sickness dismissal

    An employee who had been off sick with an inner ear disorder for some months, but who wanted to return to work to see if she could cope, was nevertheless fairly dismissed because the employer acted in accordance with its policy on absenteeism, holds the EAT in G N Netcom Ltd v Whitwell.

  • Date:
    1 October 1994
    Type:
    Law reports

    Incapability: Cause of incapability is irrelevant to fairness

    An industrial tribunal was wrong to find a dismissal unfair solely on the grounds that the employee's unfitness to continue work as a firefighter had been caused by the employer's treatment of him, holds the EAT in London Fire & Civil Defence Authority v Betty.

  • Date:
    1 November 1987
    Type:
    Law reports

    Pregnancy-connected incapability justifies fair dismissal

    In Grimsby Carpet Co Ltd v Bedford (9.7.87) EOR16D, the EAT holds that dismissal of a woman rendered incapable of adequately doing her work because of a pregnancy-related illness falls within the exception to the general principle that pregnancy-related dismissals are automatically unfair.

  • Date:
    8 December 1981
    Type:
    Law reports

    Capability: Ill-health and working conditions

    Before dismissing an employee on grounds of ill-health attributable to working conditions, an employer should take all reasonably practicable steps to respond to advice designed to ameliorate the cause of the problem, holds the EAT in Jagdeo v Smith Industries Ltd.

  • Date:
    22 May 1981
    Type:
    Law reports

    Capability: Alidair gross incompetence test limited

    The Court of Appeal's decision in Alidair Ltd v Taylor is authority for the proposition that there are circumstances in which an employee's incompetence can be so great that it is unnecessary to give him an opportunity to improve. The effect of the Court of Appeal's more recent decision in Inner London Education Authority v Lloyd, however, is to limit the application of the Alidair case. Rejecting an analogy of the case of Mr Lloyd, a probationary teacher, to that of Mr Taylor, an airline pilot, the Appeal Court points out that in Alidair the safety of a large number of people was involved.

  • Date:
    7 October 1980
    Type:
    Law reports

    Capability: Dismissal for intermittent sickness absence

    Where an employee is absent from work for a substantial period of time through illness it is well established that employers must take proper steps to ascertain the true medical position and, once this has been done, to consult with the employee before deciding whether or not to dismiss. However, as the EAT has recently emphasised in International Sports Co Ltd v Thomson and Rolls-Royce Ltd v Walpole, these principles are inappropriate where the employee is frequently absent as a result of unconnected minor ailments.