unfair dismissal Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

s94(1) ERA

A

‘an employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed by his employer’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

qualification to claim

A

PQ step 2: s108- 2 years continuous employment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

ACAS

A

failure to follow can affect remedies and made dismissal unfair

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

has there been a dismissal? PQ step 1

A

s95- no formal process. tangled question of law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

s95 definition includes …

A

a. termination by employer (whether with or without notice)
b. expiration of fixed term contract without renewal
c. constructive dismissal
d. resignation and termination by mutual agreements, automatic termination

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

a) termination without notice Kwik Fit v Lineham

A

Resignations given in the heat of the moment may not count as ‘true resignations’ and in special circumstances, the employer should allow a reasonable time to pass before accepting it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Tanner v Kean

A

where words/actions are unambiguous prima facie, the employer is generally entitled to accept.
‘special circumstances’ may arise- C was publicly rebuked, so threw his keys, left + asked for wages the next day.
the employer must allow time for this to be revoked.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

a) termination without notice London Probation Board v Kirkpatrick

A

an agreement between employer and employee to ‘reinstate’ employee after an original dismissal was purely contractual and could be effective in erasing any gap in continuity of employment for the purposes of unfair dismissal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

b) expiration of a fixed term contract without renewal

fixed term work directive 99/70

A

counts as a dismissal and must be defended in the same way as others, although often reasons are obvious e.g. where the job no longer exists

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

c) constructive dismissal

termination by the employee

A

in circumstances where the employee is entitled to terminate without notice- because of the employer’s conduct/ employer repudiation (express/ implied) = constructive dismissal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

s95(1)(c)

A

constructive dismissal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Western Excavating v Sharp

A

the contract test applies- the employers conduct must amount to a repudiatory (fundamental) breach of contract. acting ‘unreasonably’ is not enough

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Lewis v Motorworld Garages

A

a series of acts by the employer can be cumulatively taken into account using an objective test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

McBride v Falkirk Football Club

A

breach of the implied term of trust and confidence is a repudiatory breach. the duty not to act in a manner likely to undermine T +C is judged objectively

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Vairea v Reed Business Information

A

Retraction of repudiation, such as reversing a wrongful discipline on appeal, can prevent a constructive dismissal: discipline vacated on appeal is treated as never having happened

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What = breach of trust and confidence?

A
unreasonable change in job duties
demotion 
humiliating tasks 
insults 
unreasonably refusing loan usually given
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

d) resignation and termination by mutual agreements, automatic termination

A

ERA S203- No contracting out of UD protection

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

s97

A

defines the effective date of termination

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

s98

A

requires that, if dismissal is shown, employer must probe a reason or principle reason for the dismissal and prove that the reason is a potentially fair one

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

s98(4)

A

‘fairness’ depends on the reasonableness of the employers decision - neutral burden of proof

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

disqualified categories of employee

A

s193, 199, 200
age (over 65)
police, national security

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

d) igbo v Johnson Matthey chemicals Ltd

A

agreements for automatic termination of employment are void under s203 ERA

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Rai v Somerfield Stores Ltd

A

if the employer gives an ultimatum which the employee chooses to disregard, that amounts to a resignation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

e) frustation

A

contract law concept- avoids dismissal.
the employer does not have to dismiss e.g. employee dies/ imprisoned.
the event, not addressed in the contract, renders performance impossible = contract terminates

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Notcutt v Universal Equipment

A

the contract is deemed at an end because of an unexpected event that makes performance impossible (heart attack meant that the employee could not longer do the job)- this is not a dismissal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

ratio of frustration

A

the employer did not hire someone who would have a heart attack. reasonable adjustments must be considered

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Warner v Armfield Retail & Leisure

A

before frustration can be considered, the tribunal must be satisfied that any reasonable adjustments the employer was under a duty to make had been made

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

step 3 in PQ: effective date o termination. s97

A

3 month limitation period to make a claim to tribunal begins to run at end of actual notice/ date of termination

if employer does not give notice the contract terminates and the clock begins to run

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

notice: communication

A

employee must receive communication of notice

continuity and compensatory pay are calculated with statutory notice added on

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Harper v Virgin Net Ltd

A

no right to claim compensation for loss of an opportunity to claim unfair dismissal. i.e. where failure to give notice meant the employee did not have sufficient continuous employment for UD

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Wedgewood v Ministergate Hull Ltd

A

effective date of termination s97

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

special circumstances

A

employer must allow reasonable time for special circumstances to contradict prima facie interpretation or to allow employee to retract heated words.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

step 4: the reason for dismissal

A

s98- employer must prove reason and that reason must come under ‘potentially fair reasons’. this reason must have also applied at the time of dismissal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

the ‘reason’ for constructive dismissal

  • wells v countryside estate agents
A

if a dismissal is constructive, the relevant reason is the reason for the act which constituted a repudiatory breach of contract by the employer:

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

after-discovered conduct and appeals

  • West Midlands Co-operative Society v Tipton
A

facts discovered during the appeal can support the original reason for dismissal but cannot constitute an independent reason

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

tainted decisions

Royal Mail v Juhti

A

if the apparent decision maker relies on advice, and the advice is tainted with, say victimisation, if the decision-maker is unaware and believes the decision is free of taint, then the decision is free of taint

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

not constructive dismissal

A

 Reasonable changes to job duties to avoid costs threatening company
 Failure to consult worker on program which firm decides not to pursue
 Assigning smaller office
 Isolated insults
 Suspending worker & not ‘leaning over backwards’ to avoid financial hardship. Sometimes if someone is accused that might justify firing them they might suspend the person to ensure evidence is not contaminated.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

potentially fair reasons for dismissal

A

s98(1)-(3)

a) capability or qualifications
b) conduct
c) redundancy
d) statutory contravention (i.e continuing to employ this person would contravene a statute)
e) SOSR

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

W Devis & Sons Ltd v Atkins

A

the employer cannot rely on facts he was not aware of at the time of dismissal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

s98(1)(a)

A

it is for the employer to show the principal reason for the dismissal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

s98(1)(b)

A

employer show reasonable or SOSR

42
Q

s98(4)

A

fairness depends of the reasonableness of the employers decision

43
Q

the principal reason

A

employer must pick a reason and strike to it
reason must have applied at the time of firing
employer may not justify reason based on facts learned afterward, such as in an appeal

44
Q

SOSR

A

capability or qualifications
conduct of employee
redundancy
^can be one of these reasons but this is not required e.g. failure to disclose mental illness

45
Q

the standard of reasonableness/ ‘fairness’

A

band of reasonable response= neutral burden of proof. ‘fairness’ depends on reasonableness of the employer’s decisions

46
Q

the band: contours

A

 Tribunals tend to defer to employer’s choice of grounds for dismissal in work rules
 If handbook says offence leads to dismissal, can challenge for inconsistent enforcement
 If most employers view it as disproportional to sack long-serving employee for relatively minor offence, still could fall within band
 Courts tend to disturb only perverse firings

47
Q

s98(4)

A

standard of reasonableness/ potentially fair reason

48
Q

Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones

A

Lord Browne-Wilkinson J’s guidance:

a) start w/ words of s98(4)
b) ET must consider the reasonableness of the employer’s conduct
c) the ET must not substitute its decisions as to what was right course for that of the employer
d) most cases, there is a band of reasonable responses to the employee’s conduct
e) did the circumstances fall within the band of reasonable repossess which an employer = dismiss.

49
Q

Saunders v Scottish National Camps Assoc

A

controversial: homosexuality of employee working with children could be an SOSR>
now: changes attitudes and Equality Act

50
Q

Haddon v Van den Berg Foods Ltd

A

more ‘hands on’ approach by the ET in determining reasonableness, disapproving of ‘range of reasonable responses test’
- Employer threw a party during work hours, with booze, to celebrate employee’s long service
 Employee was a bit ‘over served’ at this party, and went home before his shift ended
 Tribunal held that sacking him for this was within the band, as they couldn’t say that the handful of employers who would do the same were necessarily unreasonable employers
 (EAT reversed, equating ‘band’ with perversity, but CA in Madden resurrected the band)

51
Q

Haddon overrules, and back to Iceland… HSBC v Madden

A

the ‘bank of reasonable responses’ test is firmly re-established

52
Q

Post Office v Foley

A

reinstated a ‘band’ unequivocally

53
Q

Sainsbury’s supermarkets v Hitt

A

range of reasonable responses test applies to employer’s investigation, meaning that the investigation need not be ideal, jus no worse than what at least some reasonable employers would do

54
Q

the band: Criticisms

A

 How are tribunals to identify the content of this fictional ‘band’ of responses?
 What if all they can do is reflect the actual responses of actual employers: reasonable?
 Does this not promote managerial discretion over job security as a public interest?
 Do we not sell ‘fairness’ short by treating the same as ‘commercial reasonableness’
 Newbound: CoA recently pushed back against a tendency of appeal courts to find a ‘substitution mindset’ any time a tribunal criticized a decision

55
Q

Newbound v Thames Water Ultilities

A

CA recently pushed back against a tendency of appeal courts to find a ‘substitution; mindset anytime a tribunal criticised a decision.
‘an employment tribunal is entitled to find that dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses without being accused of placing itself in the position fo the employer’

56
Q

the requirements of reasonableness
a) capability/ qualification
s98(2)(a) + 98(3)

A

performance/ ill health

usual rule: require a series of progressive warnings, failure to remedy

57
Q

aladair v Taylor

A

some jobs require perfection (pilot). one failure= enough. employer’s belief in capability is what matters (capability)

58
Q

Daubney

A

in ill health cases employer should consult, determine medical position (more recently, Doolan)

59
Q

L v M

A

employer cased unfitness due to stress and failed to make reasonable adjustments= unfair because employer caused breakdown

60
Q

bliss

A

cannot have invasive medical inquiries

61
Q

Equality Act

A

can require reasonable adjustments

62
Q

Polkey v AE Dayton Services

A

procedural unfairness leads to an unfair dismissal if it was not reasonable on the part of the employer: it is no defence for an employer to say the unfair procedure made no difference, if the decision not to afford the procedure was unreasonable at the time

63
Q

Employment Relations Act 1999

A

s10: right to be accompanies at a disciplinary hearing by a trade union official or another employee. no right to be accompanied by a lawyer

64
Q

East Lindsey District Council v Daubney

A

except in exceptional circumstances employers should consult the employee and inform themselves of the true medical position before dismissing him on grounds of ill health

65
Q

Bliss v South East Thames

A

requiring an employee o have a psychiatric examination amounted to a repudiation of the contract

66
Q

DB Schenker Rail v Doolan

A

the decision to dismiss is a managerial one not a medical one, and an employer should make its own assessment of the risk to an employees health from returning to work. standard of enquiry= Burchell test

67
Q

L v M

A

• A dismissal can be found unfair where the employer caused the illness through unreasonable stress, or even exacerbated an existing mental illness or vulnerability

68
Q

b) conduct

A

misconduct dismissal = common in exam
major issue: sufficiency of investigation

must follow ACAS code

69
Q

burden is neutral = don’t need evidence of conduct

A

tribunal decides if belief is fair and dismissal is a fair response

70
Q

the burchell test

A

conduct is not admitted, but suspected, the burchell test is applied:

  1. employer must prove the fact of her belief in the guilt of the employee
  2. employer must prove factual grounds on which to base the belief of the guilt
  3. employer must prove she carried out as much investigation into the matter as was reasonable in all circumstances of the case
71
Q

BHS v Burchell

A
  1. reasonable belief
  2. based on reasonable evidence, derived from a reasonable investigation
  3. reasonable to dismiss based on that belief
72
Q

burchell test affirmed in

A

Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Roldan

73
Q

Weddel & Co Ltd v Tepper

A

• Failure to give an employee a proper chance to refute allegations of misconduct amounted to unfair procedure

74
Q

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets v Hitt

A

o Box of razor blades was missing; found in Hitt’s locker; he & another had opportunity to get into the locker.
o EAT found unreasonable non-investigation of who had keys to locker, who else had opportunity/ keys to the locker, and where bakery manager was
• Sainsbury refused to check is other employee stole
o CA ruled ‘band’ test applies to investigation as well (eg each step of Burchell); found that other employers would done no more
• Any reasonable employer would have investigated who else had access where the blades were.
• Not Q of whether H is guilty or not, whether reasonable employer would have investigated who had keys, who was there at the time,

75
Q

Monie v Coral Racing

A

‘blanket’ dismissal- when one of two must be guilty, and an employer can’t tell which, can sack both.

employers cannot rely on subsequent, different reasons for dismissal

76
Q

Parr v whitbread

A
'blanket' dismissal 
•	Where the employer reasonably suspects a group of employees of misconduct, dismissal of the whole group may be fair provided a reasonable investigation
 (a) cannot identify the true culprit 
(b) it must have been one of them and 
(c) it could have been any of them.
77
Q

Orr v Milton Keynes Council

A

an employer cannot be held to know key mitigating facts known to other employees about an individual, including his line manager, but of which the decision maker was unaware

78
Q

Leach v Office of Communications

A

where an employer dismisses because conduct subjects company to ‘reputational risk’ the reason is SOSR, not conduct, so allegation need not be investigated, but must be reliable

79
Q

ii) failure to follow procedure

A

it is possible for the dismissal to be unfair if it would have been fair otherwise
policy; Cabaj; way; Mansfield

80
Q

Polkey v AE Dayton Services

A

failure to follow a reasonable procedure can make a dismissal unfair, regardless of whether it might have been fair otherwise

81
Q

Westminster City Council v Cabaj

A

exception to Polkey: failure to afford a contractually guaranteed appeal procedure did not make dismissal unfair if it was reasonable for the employer to see it as futile

82
Q

Way v spectrum property care Ltd

A

• Warnings given in bad faith will undermine fairness; if dismissal is based on cumulative warnings, and one of the warnings was given in bad faith, the dismissal can be unfair:

83
Q

Secretary of State for Justive v Mansfield

A

in cases involving a police investigation, wide-discretion given to employer’s decision maker whether to continue with or to postpone internal disciplinary hearing

84
Q

ASAS

A

failure to follow ACAS increase remedy by 25%

85
Q

iii) conduct outside employment

A

 Outside conduct can show dishonesty or unfitness, affect working relationships, or make an employer look bad in public eye

86
Q

X v Y

A

dismissal on account of ‘private; conduct could infringe art 8 however here it did not as the court viewed the relevant acts, which happened in a public place, as outside of ‘private life’. sex offences

87
Q

Freedom of expression

Pay v Lancashire Probation Service

A

• Fetish club performances and sado masochism merchandising affected public trust of probation officer, so dismissal fair

88
Q

e-misconduct

A

 Facebook and Twitter (and similar) posts which could offend customer, bring the employer into disrepute, or cause upset in the workplace, can all justify a fair dismissal.

89
Q

game retail v Laws

A

there are no special principles for analysing e-misconduct cases. v important for employer to have a clear policy on social media/ IT.

a non-work related twitter rant outside working hours posted on a twitter account originally set up for work purposes and followed by clients= fair dismissal

90
Q

Crisp v Apple Retail

A

dismissal of an employee for posting comments on facebook was found to be fair

91
Q

Teggart v Teletech UK Ltd

A

dismissal of an employee for posting comments about the alleged promiscuity of a female colleague on facebook was fair

92
Q

Bărbulescu v. Romania

A

invasion of privacy (art 8) by employers using emails and social media information for dismissal= justified and proportionate

93
Q

REMEDIES FOR UD

A

reinstatement and re-engagement

compensation

94
Q

reinstatement + re-engagement

A

s112-116 ERA 1996

Employers can be ordered to take a dismissed employee back, but this is fairly unusual in practice.

Port of London Authority v Payne [1994] IRLR 9 (CA)

95
Q

a)compensation: basic and additional award

A

calculated according to a statutory formula (involving years of service) and are not based on loss.

ERA 1996, ss. 119-122
ERA 1996, s.117

half-weeks pay for every year if under 22
22-24= week pay
1 1/2 week pay- over 40

96
Q

b) compensation: compensatory award

A

s123 ERA
such amount tribunal considers equitable in circumstances having regard to loss

cap= one years salary, future lost wages, stigma, lost statutory rights, lost fringe benefits

97
Q

(road to dunnachie 1)

Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson

A

damages are available only for lost wages and other pecuniary looses. damages for ‘injury to feelings’ as opposed to ‘pecuniary damages’ were not available for UD

98
Q

(road to dunnachie 2)

Malik

A

created a stir by awarding stigma damages

99
Q

Johnson v Unisys Ltd

A

Lord Hoffman obiter: ‘loss’ can only mean financial loss= too narrow. ‘I see no reason why in an appropriate case it should not include compensation for distress, humiliation, damage to reputation in the community or family life;.

HL held that damages for WD could not be awarded for anything resulting from the manner of dismissal (including feelings)

100
Q

Dunnachie v Kingston-Hull City Council

A

 Dunnachie had been badly treated by his employer leading up to dismissal and, relying on Johnson, the tribunal awarded £10,000 for injury to feelings
 CA agreed, but HL held Hoffmann’s words dicta
 HL focused on the words “having regard to the loss sustained,” not “such amount as the tribunal considers just and equitable”

101
Q

Brown v Careham Hall

A

stigma damages only awarded where employee’s difficulty in finding new employment is attributable to the dismissal itself

102
Q

s123(4) ERA 1996

A

duty of employee to mitigate the loss- reasonableness test