HR Articles

In Awan v ICTS Ltd the EAT found an implied term that where an employee is contractually entitled to long-term disability benefits, they will not be dismissed for continuing incapacity. The Claimant had a contractual entitlement to a long-term disability benefit plan for the duration of his employment.

The Court of Appeal recently confirmed that an ambiguous letter of acceptance of resignation from an employer did not vary the original termination date by agreement. JLT Speciality v Craven concerned a bonus advance of £500,000 which was agreed to be repayable if the Claimant resigned “on or before 31 December 2016”.

In the recent case of Patel v Folkstone Nursing Home Ltd, the Court of Appeal held that an employee had not been dismissed by his employer as his internal appeal against dismissal had been successful; thereby effectively erasing the earlier dismissal. The claimant had been dismissed for gross misconduct for falsifying records and sleeping whilst on duty.

As we have previously blogged, if an employee fails to produce evidence of his right to work in the UK, it will not necessarily be fair for an employer to dismiss on the basis that it would be illegal to continue to employ the employee. However, dismissal in these circumstances can still be fair if the employer has a reasonable and genuinely held belief that it would be illegal to continue to employ them and has followed a fair process.

If an employee is dismissed for gross misconduct just short of 2 years service, s/he cannot add on statutory minimum notice so as to qualify to bring an unfair dismissal claim, found the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Lancaster & Duke Limited v Wileman.

The recent EAT decision of Quintiles Commercial v Barongo held that even in the absence of any prior warnings, a dismissal for misconduct is not necessarily unfair where the conduct is labelled ‘serious misconduct’ rather than ‘gross misconduct’. The Tribunals need to consider the circumstances as a whole when assessing the decision to dismiss.

An employee can be unfairly dismissed if they resign as a result of an employer’s repudiatory breach, known as ‘constructive dismissal’.

In Pets at Home Ltd v MacKenzie, the EAT held that if a breach of contract has been affirmed by an employee, a further breach by the employer cannot revive the earlier breach.

This week (in Reilly v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council), the Supreme Court, has found that a head teacher's failure to disclose her relationship with a man who had been convicted of making indecent images of children justified her dismissal.

The recent case of Royal Surrey County NHS Foundation Trust v Drzymala serves as a reminder to employers that the non-renewal of a fixed term contract will be a dismissal and that the usual principals governing unfair dismissals will apply.