An employer can fairly dismiss an employee for making derogatory comments on a personal Facebook account.

An employer’s decision to dismiss an employee summarily on grounds of gross misconduct was not a reasonable response to an employee’s failure to adhere to a new health and safety procedure. It was therefore outside of the ‘range of reasonable responses’ open to the employer, and it constituted an unfair dismissal.

A fairly conducted appeal is capable of remedying even serious procedural defects in the first part of a disciplinary process.

In the absence of evidence suggesting that an employee is unable to do his job, it was unreasonable for an employer to dismiss an employee for coming to work whilst smelling of alcohol.

Two recent cases relate to employers’ investigations into misconduct by their employees.

An employee of a British company working remotely from Australia could bring a claim in the UK for victimisation for whistleblowing and unfair dismissal.

The Court of Appeal has held that an employer’s use of the word ‘fraud’ as a label for alleged gross misconduct was an immaterial consideration as to whether the subsequent dismissal was fair.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that offensive tweets made by an employee on his personal Twitter account and which did not relate to the employer could be grounds for dismissal for gross misconduct.

The Court of Appeal has held that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s decision to withdraw a Commissioner from office amounted to breach of contract, but that the Commissioner’s subsequent development of clinical depression was not a foreseeable consequence of its decision. As such, it was not liable for losses the Commissioner suffered as a result.

The EAT has remitted a case to the tribunal to consider whether a mentally ill employee could be considered culpable for his actions which led to his summary dismissal for gross misconduct. It emphasised that the conduct must have been wilful and that the mitigating circumstances of the illness must be taken into account.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the dismissal of a man who took time off for his dependant, in this case his pregnant partner, was not automatically unfair because he failed to inform his employer of the reason for his absence as soon as reasonably practicable.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employee’s previous breach of contract did not prevent him from bringing a claim for constructive dismissal against his former employer. However, the EAT noted that if the employer established that it could have fairly dismissed the employee had it known about his previous breach of contract, the employee’s compensation could be reduced by up to 100%.