-
- Date:
- 1 October 1992
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Frames Snooker Centre v Boyce [1992] IRLR 472 EAT, the EAT held that where any one of a group of employees could have committed a particular offence meriting dismissal, the fact that one or more of them was not dismissed does not make the dismissals of the remainder unfair if the employer is able to show that it had "solid and sensible grounds", which do not have to be related to the relevant offence, for differentiating between members of the group.
-
- Date:
- 6 July 1990
- Type:
- Employment law cases
If an employer cannot determine which individual(s), out of a group of possible culprits, are guilty of dishonesty, it may decide to dismiss them all. In Parr v Whitbread plc t/a Threshers Wine Merchants, the EAT holds that such dismissals may be fair, as long as certain criteria are met.
-
- Date:
- 21 August 1984
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The EAT can overturn industrial tribunal decisions on the ground either that there has been an error of law, or that the decision was perverse. In Dobie v Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that these are alternative not cumulative reasons for allowing an appeal.
-
- Date:
- 19 October 1982
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones the EAT has reviewed the decisions on the test of reasonableness as required by s.57(3) of the EP(C)A. They stress the importance of considering the range of reasonable responses and warn against the test which states that a dismissal is unfair only if no sensible or reasonable employer could have arrived at that decision, as this approach could result in a misunderstanding of the law.
-
- Date:
- 1 December 1980
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Monie v Coral Racing Ltd [1980] IRLR 464 CA, the Court of Appeal held that where an employer reasonably believes that one of two, or possibly both, employees are involved in dishonesty, but it is impossible for it to determine which of them is guilty, it may be reasonable to dismiss both of them, as long as the employer acts reasonably in all the circumstances of the case.
-
- Date:
- 1 May 1979
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Ladbroke Racing Ltd v Arnott and others [1979] IRLR 192 EAT, the EAT held that the Industrial Tribunal was entitled to find that the respondent betting shop employees had been unfairly dismissed on grounds of placing bets on behalf of outside persons or condoning such bets, notwithstanding that the appellants' disciplinary rules specified that such conduct would result in immediate dismissal.
-
- Date:
- 7 March 1979
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The correct approach to cases of suspected misconduct in general - and suspected dishonesty in particular - was set out last year by the EAT in British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell.
-
- Date:
- 25 October 1978
- Type:
- Employment law cases
Generally, dismissal of an employee for a single act of misconduct where the offence in question is specified as one that will result in dismissal under the company's disciplinary rules and procedure, is likely to result in a finding of fair dismissal. But, as Laws Stores Ltd v Oliphant shows, this will not always be so.
-
- Date:
- 22 October 1977
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Taylor v Alidair Ltd, the Appeal Court upholds a finding by the Employment Appeal Tribunal that it was not unfair to dismiss a pilot on the basis of a single error of judgement. And in Retarded Children's Aid Society Ltd v Day, it holds that the Code of Practice notwithstanding, in some cases it may be reasonable to dismiss without giving the employee a second chance, "especially with a man who is determined to go on in his own way".
-
- Date:
- 1 October 1977
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In LM Boychuk v HJ Symons Holdings Ltd [1977] IRLR 395 EAT, the EAT held that an employee who insisted on wearing a "Lesbians Ignite" badge was fairly dismissed because the employer asserted that the badge could cause offence to fellow employees and customers.