Unfair Dismissal

Work carried out before a formally agreed start date may not count for continuity of employment purposes.

Just because a last straw was not actually a last straw did not mean that a constructive unfair dismissal claim could not proceed.

For an employee to have been ‘designated’ by their employer to carry out health and safety activities, he or she must have been selected by the employer to carry out specific activities in connection with preventing or reducing risks to health and safety at work, over and above their ordinary job duties.

In an unfair dismissal case, an investigator’s failure to share a material fact with the dismissing officer could be relevant when assessing whether the employer had acted reasonably in dismissing.

An employee charged with a criminal offence was fairly dismissed due to the risk to the employer’s reputation.

A separate investigatory hearing and disciplinary hearing is not required in every case by right.

An employer’s unreasonable disciplinary investigation breached the implied term of trust and confidence which entitled the employee to resign and successfully claim unfair constructive dismissal.

In upholding a tribunal’s decision to dismiss all an employee’s claims, the Court of Appeal provide useful guidance on fair conduct procedures and rescuing appeals.

An employee was automatically unfairly dismissed because of his union activities even though neither the manager conducting the disciplinary hearing nor the manager who dismissed the appeal were motivated by prejudice against the employee because of his union activities.

Changes to an investigator’s report into potential misconduct, made at the suggestion of an in-house lawyer, did not render an employee’s subsequent dismissal unfair

The dismissal of a nurse who gave a patient a Bible and proselytised (tried to convert people to another religion) her religious views was fair and did not breach European law.

Protection from dismissal for asserting a statutory right only applies where the employee alleged an actual breach of statute, not a threatened one.

A ‘conduct’ dismissal can encompass serious neglect, omission or carelessness - here a failure to meet the role’s requirements.

The dismissal for gross misconduct of a long-serving employee for failing a routine drug test was unfair.

Where an employee had been dismissed on the ground of medical incapacity while his contractual entitlement to long-term disability benefits was ongoing, it was appropriate to imply a term into his employment contract to restrict the employer’s contractual power to dismiss.

There was no unfairness when an employer withheld certain evidence from a disciplinary hearing that ultimately led to an employee’s dismissal.

A volunteer reservist was fairly dismissed for committing to a seven-week training exercise without obtaining his employer’s approval.

A refusal to postpone a disciplinary because of the unavailability of the worker’s chosen companion may make a dismissal unfair.

An employer seeking to justify its discriminatory dismissal of an employee on long-term sick leave should have considered part-time working.

Where a contract of employment provided for a disciplinary process and a right of appeal against dismissal, it was implicit that a successful appeal would, without more, revive the employment relationship and extinguish the dismissal.