Poor attitudes to organisational change can be gross misconduct
An employee’s poor attitude towards organisational changes within their employer’s business could amount to gross misconduct.
An employee’s poor attitude towards organisational changes within their employer’s business could amount to gross misconduct.
In some cases, an employer can take into account an employee’s history of expired written warnings in deciding to dismiss them.
A higher standard of disciplinary investigation is necessary to ensure a fair dismissal where the misconduct alleged is very serious.
An employer should be wary of relying upon previous unfair disciplinary sanctions to justify a subsequent dismissal.
Was a headteacher’s decision not to inform her school of her relationship with a sex offender a fair reason for dismissal?
In the wake of events at Byron Hamburgers, BDBF’s Paul McAleavey considers employers’ competing legal obligations to prevent illegal working while also maintaining the trust and confidence of their employees. Originally published in the Solicitors’ Journal on 16 August 2016.
An Employment Tribunal has ordered that an unfairly dismissed employee be reinstated on restricted duties to the job from which she was dismissed 9 years previously.
A company who sent written concerns about their performance to an employee who was off sick with work-related stress was found to have constructively dismissed that employee.
IKEA in Dublin has been ordered to pay €30,000 (£23,000) for unfairly dismissing a member of staff who had drunk a milkshake without paying for it.
The dismissal of an employee for sharing confidential information was unfair in circumstances where the business’ information-sharing culture was at odds with its formal confidentiality policy.
An employee’s dismissal will not be unfair by reason of a colleague being given disparate treatment if the two employees’ circumstances are not truly parallel.
An employee was unfairly dismissed in circumstances where heavy influence from the Human Resources department had led to the investigating officer changing his recommendation from a final warning to immediate dismissal.