Unfair dismissal; SOSR; a sound business reason can justify dismissal for refusing new terms. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Unfair dismissal; reasonable responses; established the 'band of reasonable responses' test. [Summary checked against a practitioner text, not the judgment.]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Unfair dismissal; compensation; if a dismissal is procedurally unfair but the employee would have been dismissed anyway, compensation is reduced. [Summary checked against a practitioner text, not the judgment.]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Unfair dismissal; some other substantial reason; reorganisation; dismissal for refusing new terms. The tribunal had directed itself that where new terms are much less favourable the dismissal is unfair unless the business reasons are so pressing that acceptance is vital for the survival of the business. The EAT (Tudor Evans J presiding) held that this was not the law: an employer is not confined to offering less favourable terms only where the very survival of the business depends on their acceptance, and Hollister v National Farmers' Union supports no such rule. Whether the new terms have been agreed with a recognised trade union is relevant to reasonableness. Account of the reasoning taken from Garside and Laycock Ltd v Booth [2011] IRLR 735 at [10]-[11], which quotes the passage, and from IDS. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Unfair dismissal; some other substantial reason; reorganisation; dismissal for refusing new terms. The tribunal had directed itself that where new terms are much less favourable the dismissal is unfair unless the business reasons are so pressing that acceptance is vital for the survival of the business. The EAT (Tudor Evans J presiding) held that this was not the law: an employer is not confined to offering less favourable terms only where the very survival of the business depends on their acceptance, and Hollister v National Farmers' Union supports no such rule. Whether the new terms have been agreed with a recognised trade union is relevant to reasonableness. Account of the reasoning taken from Garside and Laycock Ltd v Booth [2011] IRLR 735 at [10]-[11], which quotes the passage, and from IDS. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Unfair dismissal; remedies; the compensatory award under s.123(1) ERA 1996 is confined to financial loss, non-pecuniary loss (injury to feelings, manner of dismissal) is not recoverable. The House of Lords unanimously confirmed the orthodox position that had prevailed in all tribunals prior to the Court of Appeal's contrary decision. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Unfair dismissal; some other substantial reason; dismissal for refusing a pay cut. The employer, in trading difficulty, asked its staff to vote on a five per cent pay reduction; 77 voted in favour and the claimant, one of two who ultimately refused, was dismissed. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. The EAT (Langstaff J presiding) allowed the appeal and remitted. The tribunal had misread Catamaran Cruisers Ltd v Williams as requiring that the employer be in a situation so desperate that the cuts were the only way of saving the business, when that case had rejected the proposition [10]-[11]; and it had asked whether it was reasonable for the employee to refuse, when section 98(4) asks whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing. The EAT added that 'equity' in section 98(4)(b) may require a tribunal to consider on whom the cuts fell, including whether management kept its own pay while cutting that of others [23].
Notice of dismissal; retraction. A notice of dismissal, once given, cannot be unilaterally retracted and may be withdrawn only by consent. The 'special circumstances' exception is not a true exception but merely allows the giver to show he never intended to give notice at all. Note the party order: CF Capital plc was the appellant.
Cited by
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Unfair dismissal; conduct; gross misconduct and sanction. A finding of gross misconduct does not automatically mean that dismissal falls within the band of reasonable responses: the tribunal must still ask whether dismissal was reasonable in the particular circumstances, taking account of mitigation such as long service, a previously unblemished record and the consequences of dismissal for the employee. To move straight from gross misconduct to fairness of dismissal is an error of law.
Affirmed by Brito-Babapulle v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust [2014] EWCA Civ 1626 (2014-10-29)
Unfair dismissal; consistency; dismissing an employee for a safety breach while not disciplining the manager was unfair.
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Construction of dismissal letters; EDT. A letter headed 'without prejudice', incorrectly asserting termination by mutual agreement and enclosing a draft settlement agreement, was nonetheless correctly construed as a letter of dismissal: it clearly communicated unilateral termination on an identified date, with a clear demarcation between the termination part and the settlement proposal, and did not come out of the blue. Applies the Chapman v Letheby non-technical, reasonable-employee approach to identifying whether and when an employer's document terminates the contract.
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.