Unfair dismissal Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, in determining whether an employer had been entitled to rely on a final written warning given to an employee in earlier disciplinary proceedings, the broad test, as laid down by s98(4) of the was whether, in the particular case, it was reasonable for the employer to treat the conduct reason, taken together with the circumstances of the final written warning, as sufficient to dismiss the employee. It was not the function of the employment tribunal to re-open the final warning and rule on an issue raised by the employee as to whether the final warning should, or should not, have been issued and whether it was a legally valid warning or a nullity.
Redundancy Employees working at residential home for persons with mental disabilities. The employees worked at a residential home for persons with mental disabilities. After they were made redundant, they brought a claim for unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal held that the employees had been unfairly dismissed because they had been assessed on criteria designed for use in a recruitment context and no account had been taken of their past performance. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the employer's appeal, having found that although some of the tribunal's reasons had been flawed, its primary reason had been one that had been open to it.
Employment Tips, gratuities and service charges. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) ruled that a case which had been remitted by a previous EAT to an employment tribunal for a re-hearing was limited to a re-hearing of those issues which had been under appeal before the previous EAT and no others.
Employment Dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal of an employee, who had worked at an open prison as a teacher and learning specialist. Following allegations of harassment and bullying, made against the employee by a colleague, he was dismissed by his employer. The employee had claimed unfair dismissal as a result of his having made certain 'protected disclosures'.
Employment Unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the employment tribunal had been correct to give permission to the employer to rely on the employee's spent conviction at the hearing for the latter's claims for unfair dismissal and race discrimination as it had applied the correct legal test for determining the relevance of the evidence.
Unfair dismissal Compensation. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed an employer's appeal in respect of a remedies award made by the employment tribunal in circumstances where there had been an unfair dismissal finding in favour of two employees. The EAT held that the tribunal had failed to apply established principles in determining whether there should have been a reduction in the compensation awarded.
Employment Disability. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the appeal of Carphone Warehouse Ltd (the employer) on two grounds of disability discrimination but dismissed their appeal on the issue of constructive dismissal.The employee, a branch manager had had a history of psychiatric problems. However when a new regional manager was appointed, the employee, who felt under pressure, was suspended for twelve months. The EAT held that it had been obvious that the employee had been constructively dismissed and that that constructive dismissal had been unfair.
Employment Unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the employment tribunal, in upholding the employee's claim for unfair dismissal, had neither fallen into the error of substituting its own decision for that of the employer, nor had its judgment been perverse.
Employment Disability. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment tribunal had not erred, though in its reasoning it could have been more precise, in finding that the employee had failed to show to the requisite standard that she had been disabled during her period of employment with the employer.
Employment Disability. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed an employee's appeal against a decision of the employment tribunal which held, inter alia, that the employee, who was obese and suffered from a catalogue of physical and mental conditions, was not disabled within the meaning of the .