The Employment Appeal Tribunal has handed down its decision that the true construction of the meaning of the words used by an employer in a letter of dismissal in which it paid monies to an employee as an ‘ex gratia payment’ was a question of law.
Overturning a tribunal’s finding of unfair dismissal, the EAT has held that an employer had properly decided on the basis of the evidence available to it, which included a report from occupational health and a clinical psychologist, that an employee was not fit to return to his stressful managerial role. His dismissal for ‘capability’ (or rather the lack of it) was fair. The EAT reiterated that the decision to dismiss an employee is a managerial one and not a medical one. An employer should make its own assessment of the risk to an employee’s health from returning to work.
Barmaid dismissed by text message whilst on maternity leave wins £8,500, she was not given notice and had not been given a contract of employment.
This recent High Court decision sends a cautionary message to employers who engage in any communications, not limited to references, which may have a financial impact on former employees.
An ET held that the heavy-handed way in which a manager dealt with suspected unauthorised absence entitled the employee to resign and claim unfair dismissal
Manager Who Got Pregnant While Still On Maternity Leave Awarded Five Figure Sum For Sex Discrimination after she was made redundant when she got pregnant again while still on maternity leave.
Powerlifting champ wins tribunal case against care home. Miss Nicoll missed a shift, thinking it had been covered but the care home dismissed her.
A family-run business made the classic mistake of having one person act as “judge, jury and executioner” in a disciplinary procedure against an employee accused of misconduct.
Employers are being urged to consider the circumstances leading up to alleged misconduct before dismissing, following an employee winning a case for unfair dismissal.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that an employee’s dismissal following an allegation of ‘loss of £3,000’, when the real reason was the employer’s belief that she had stolen the money, was unfair. In the EAT’s view it is a ‘fundamental right’ that an employee who is accused of dishonesty should have that allegation put to them.
Call Us