Automatically unfair dismissal

New and updated

• Date:

  2 February 2007

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  TUPE case law update

  This article looks at some of the important judgments in the area of the transfer of undertakings over the past year.

• Date:

  29 December 2006

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Transfer of undertakings: 'ETO' defence does not apply to harmonisation involving no workforce changes

  In London Metropolitan University v Sackur and others EAT/0286/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that standardisation of employees' terms is not of itself sufficient to give rise to an ETO defence.

• Date:

  1 December 2006

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Bolton School v Evans

  In Bolton School v Evans [2007] IRLR 140 CA, the Court of Appeal has held that protection against a detriment for making a protected disclosure does not extend to dismissal for conduct that is designed to demonstrate that the belief in the wrongdoing is reasonable.

• Date:

  3 November 2006

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedures: Procedural unfairness and redundancy dismissals

  In Alexander and another v Bridgen Enterprises Ltd [2006] IRLR 422 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that two employees were automatically unfairly dismissed in breach of the statutory dismissal procedure because the employer had not provided sufficient information about their selection for redundancy in advance of the dismissal meeting.

• Date:

  10 October 2006

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  McLean v Rainbow Homeloans Ltd

  In McLean v Rainbow Homeloans Ltd [2007] IRLR 14 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that an employee was unfairly dismissed for asserting a statutory right when he refused to work extra hours that would have been a breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998.

• Date:

  12 October 2004

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Case round-up

  This week's case law round-up from Eversheds, covering pregnancy-related dismissals and transfers not covered by TUPE Regulations.

• Date:

  3 September 2004

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Public interest disclosure: Meaning of "good faith" in whistleblowing provisions

  In Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers' Centre, the Court of Appeal holds that an employment tribunal had been correct to find that an employee's "whistleblowing" disclosure was not made in good faith because, although she believed her allegations to be true and did not make the disclosure for personal gain, her motivation for making it was personal antagonism towards the subject of the disclosure.

• Date:

  9 December 2003

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Case round-up: whistleblowing

  This week's case round-up from Eversheds: covering whistleblowing.

• Date:

  9 May 2003

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Time off for dependants: First consideration of dependants' leave entitlement

  In Qua v John Ford Morrison Solicitors, the EAT holds that the statutory right to take a "reasonable amount of time off" to care for dependants is a right that applies during working hours to enable employees to deal with the variety of specified unexpected or sudden events affecting their dependants, and in order to make any "necessary" longer-term arrangements for their care.

• Date:

  10 January 2003

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Public interest disclosure: Statutory elements of "protected disclosure" must be proved

  Where, in a protected disclosure case, the employee had not served the requisite qualifying period to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, the critical issue for the tribunal is whether or not the protected disclosure provisions in the Employment Rights Act 1996 have been satisfied on the evidence, and not substantive or procedural unfairness, which would have been the central issue in a claim for "ordinary" unfair dismissal, the Court of Appeal holds in ALM Medical Services Ltd v Bladon.