Employment Contract. The claimant former High Commissioner to Belize was removed from his position following allegations of misconduct. He sought damages against the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (the FCO) for breach of his employment contract and breach of duty. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the application, held that the FCO had breached the employment contract and its duties to the claimant by: (i) not conducting a basic analysis of the allegations before withdrawing him from his post; (ii) having the same person conduct a fact-finding investigation and disciplinary hearing; and (iii) withdrawing the claimant from his post without informing him of the case against him.
Unfair dismissal Calculation of award. An employee successfully brought proceedings against her employer, a primary care trust, for unfair dismissal. However no damages award was made on the basis of her contributory conduct. The employee appealed and the employer cross-appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The EAT allowed the appeal and the employer's cross appeal and remitted the matter to the original tribunal for a re-hearing.
Employment Contract of service. The employees had had provisions of a collective agreement relating to the payment of 'porterage' incorporated in their terms of employment. When the collective agreement was terminated, new employees did not have its terms incorporated into their contracts and were not entitled to a share of the porterage. However, the employers retained a proportion of the porterage and used that towards the new staff members' salaries. The employees issued proceedings alleging unauthorised deductions from wages on the basis that they had been entitled to all of the porterage fees, whether earned by them or the new staff. Their claim was allowed by the employment tribunal, but the employer's appeal was allowed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the employee's appeal, holding that, on the true construction of the collective agreement, it had referred to everyone who had undertaken the role of porter and not only those who had commenced after termination of the collective agreement.
Contract Variation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld a decision that the claimants, who were employees of the first defendant bank, had been entitled to enforce a promise made by the bank that they would receive a retention bonus for the year 2008. The promise had amounted to a legal enforceable obligation on the bank to pay the bonus.
Agent Fiduciary duty. The claimant had pulled out of the purchase of a property. He had been represented in the transaction by a company and its defendant directors. Subsequently, the defendants purchased the property themselves, making use of the legal advice and valuation report that had been prepared for the claimant, and made a substantial profit. The claimant sought an account of profits for breach of fiduciary duty arising from misuse of his confidential information. The High Court rejected that claim, but awarded him nominal damages for the defendants use of the information. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal, finding that, in the circumstances, the judge had been correct not to order an account of profits.
Employment Termination of employment. The employee was dismissed from her employment one day short of a year's continuous service. The issue was whether her attendance at a meeting with the employer and a client, at the employer's request amounted to 'work' for the purpose of calculating continuous employment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that, on the facts, the employment tribunal had been entitled to conclude that it did not.
Unlawful deduction from wages Jurisdiction. The employer's claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was upheld by the employment tribunal. The employer appealed on the ground that the tribunal had had no jurisdiction to make the orders it had made. In allowing the appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment judge had had no jurisdiction to make the declarations which he had. In those circumstances, the judge's orders were set aside.
Employment Unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a nurse who had been dismissed by her employer, but following an internal appeal had been reinstated with certain conditions imposed on her employment had been constructively dismissed. The matter would be remitted to the employment tribunal for reconsideration.
Redundancy Dismissal by reason of redundancy. Following their selection for redundancy,the employees brought a claim for unfair dismissal in the employment tribunal. The tribunal found that the employees had been unfairly dismissed and that there had been no evidence that they might have been dismissed had a fair procedure been followed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the employer's appeal against the unfair dismissal finding, but held that there had been evidence that the employees might have been dismissed following a fair procedure and remitted the matter to the tribunal for reconsideration.
Employment Dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal of certain employees who had challenged the findings of the employment tribunal (the tribunal) in a situation where employees of residential care homes had been asked by the employer to agree to changes to their employment contracts. 96% of the employees had agreed to changes but 32 employees had not. The employer was required under s 188 (1) of theTrade Union and Labour Relations (Consultation) Act 1992 to consult with the employees before they were made redundant. The tribunal had found that the employer had written to those members of staff who had not returned signed new contracts to advise them that the employer would now enter into collective consultation in relation to its proposal to terminate their contracts and offer re-engagement on the new terms and conditions. The EAT held that the conclusion to which the tribunal had come had not been one of fact, approached by proper legal reasoning.