Topics

Misconduct dismissals

New and updated

  • Fair dismissal of employee who refused to work extra hours before Christmas

    Date:
    7 November 2016
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Libel: Email stating employee dismissed for gross misconduct not libellous

    Date:
    1 November 2016
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Theedom v Nourish Trading Ltd (t/a CSP Recruitment) and another [2016] IRLR 866 HC, the High Court dismissed an employee's libel claim in respect of emails sent by his employer about his misconduct.

  • Dismissal of baker for not washing hands was fair

    Date:
    28 July 2016
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Human rights: Article 8 right to privacy did not prevent reliance on iPhone evidence

    Date:
    30 June 2016
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Garamukanwa v Solent NHS Trust [2016] 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.

  • Unfair dismissal: Employee exaggerating effects of injury was fairly dismissed

    Date:
    28 June 2016
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • No libel in email stating employee dismissed for gross misconduct

    Date:
    21 June 2016
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Fair dismissal for use of racist term heard by white colleagues only

    Date:
    8 June 2016
    Type:
    Law reports

    An employment tribunal has held that an employer fairly dismissed an employee for using a racist term in the presence of white colleagues. The tribunal was unimpressed with the claimant's arguments that he did not realise anyone was listening, did not intend to offend, and the word is "street talk" where he lives.

  • Unfair dismissal: manager who refused drug test should have set example

    Date:
    13 May 2016
    Type:
    Law reports

    A manager who refused to take a "for cause" drug test was fairly dismissed because his employer was entitled to expect him to set an example for other staff, according to an employment tribunal.

  • Computer misuse: password sharing was widespread, says claimant

    Date:
    7 May 2016
    Type:
    Law reports

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has considered the fairness of a dismissal for uploading obscene material onto a work cloud storage account, when the employee argued that password sharing was "widespread" in his workplace.

  • No right to privacy for emails and photos on iPhone relating to work colleague

    Date:
    4 May 2016
    Type:
    Law reports

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that the employee had no reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of inappropriate emails and photographs on his iPhone relating to a work colleague that affected the workplace.