An employee who tried to claim constructive dismissal was held by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) to have affirmed his contract, rendering him unable to claim constructive dismissal, by giving more than his contractual notice.
An employment tribunal has ruled that a respected surgeon was unfairly dismissed after whistleblowing on poor standards of care at a hospital. The case has been reported in The Sunday Times, The Independent, Health Service Journal and Hospital Doctor. Arpita Dutt and her client, Mr Weerasinghe were also featured on BBC London News on 14 July 2014.
The EAT ruled that an employee had not been unfairly dismissed after her employer disregarded the independent appeal panel’s decision, which overturned the employer’s original decision to dismiss. Given that the employer was a small nursery, there was no other appropriate person to hear the appeal, there were no clear terms of engagement with the independent panel and a subsequent investigation was completed as part of the appeal, the employer was not bound by the appeal panel’s decision.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that employers cannot rely on contractual summary termination clauses to dismiss an employee without notice where in reality there is no gross misconduct or negligence.
The Scottish Courts found that it is potentially reasonable to dismiss a long term absentee employee for ill health even though Occupational Health indicated a potential return within the next couple of months.
In Gallop v Newport City Council, the Court of Appeal found that employers cannot necessarily say they did not know that an employee was disabled even though Occupational Health had diagnosed the employee as not disabled.
Yes, according to the Court of Appeal in Stuart v London City Airport. Mr Stuart worked at London City Airport until he was dismissed for attempting to steal goods from a duty free shop. He brought an unfair dismissal claim arguing that LCA had not carried out an adequate investigation, in particular that they had not reviewed the CCTV footage in response to the duty free shop manager’s accusation that he was concealing items under his coat.
Mr Benali worked as a chef at a Kosher bakery. In 2007-08, he was absent from work for a year as a result of his disability. On his return to work, a dispute arose with his employers over reasonable adjustments to his duties and he issued disability discrimination proceedings which were later settled. However, the requests for adjustments continued and his employers’ attitude toward him ‘hardened’.
In Buzolli v Food Partners, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that an employer’s decision to dismiss was fair even though the dismissal procedure was not fully compliant with the ACAS Code.
In Handshake Ltd v Summers, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that a breakdown in trust and confidence between an employer and employee, did not entitle the employer to rely on “some other substantial reason” to dismiss the employee.
In Optimum Group Services Plc v Muir, Optimum lost a key contract. They thought Mr Muir’s employment should transfer to the new providers, Beaumont, under TUPE. The new providers denied this and said that Mr Muir was redundant and should claim payments from Optimum. Mr Muir ended up with no job and no redundancy payment so sued both Optimum and Beaumont. Mr Muir reached a settlement with Beaumont before the hearing where they agreed to pay him £20,000. He continued his claim against Optimum and won. The Tribunal found that Mr Muir had been unfairly dismissed by Optimum. In calculating the compensatory award for unfair dismissal, it decided not to deduct the £20,000 settlement payment from Beaumont because to do so would give Optimum, who had behaved badly, a ‘windfall benefit’. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the first tribunal had got it wrong. A Tribunal, when calculating compensation for unfair dismissal, should only consider what actual financial loss was suffered by a claimant as a consequence of dismissal. The Tribunal cannot enable a claimant to profit financially irrespective of the circumstances. The Tribunal also erred when it sought to penalise Optimum for its behaviour towards Mr Muir.
In Optimum Group Services Plc v Muir, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a Tribunal should have deducted a settlement payment received by the claimant from another employer when calculating the award, in accordance with the principle that the same loss cannot be recovered twice.
