Reference Education Center | Knileexclusive.com

Good News for Employers wishing to change the terms of employment of employees, however, employers must still take care.

In Scott & Co v Richardson [2005], the Dependant, Mr Richardson, who worked for a Scottish firm of debt collectors, refused to accept his new terms of employment which required him to visit defaulting debtors during the evenings. Mr Richardson agreed to work evenings but only if this would continue to attract overtime payments as had previously been the case. Scott & Co tried for seven months to persuade Mr Richardson to change his mind but he refused, finally issuing an ultimatum that his employer should either accept his position or dismiss him. They chose to dismiss him.

At first instance, Scott & Co claimed that the change in working conditions was required to bring the company into line with new market practices and to allow them to plan work more cheaply and effectively. Mr Richardson argued that Scott & Co had failed to prove that there were advantages to the new working arrangements and that the real reason for the changes was to save money in overtime payments.

Mr Richardson succeeded in his claim for unfair dismissal and the Employment Tribunal held that it did not appear that the imposition of the shift system was of such discernible advantage that the only reasonable thing to do was to terminate the employee’s contract unless he would agree to the new arrangement.

(more…)

The case of Bell v The Spirit Group Ltd [2005] concerned a claim for unfair and constructive dismissal. The employment tribunal held that a series of acts, by the employer, cumulatively amounted to repudiation of the employee’s contract of employment.

The employee was a manager of a national chain of pubs and restaurants. He brought a complaint of unfair constructive dismissal against his employer in the employment tribunal on the grounds of failure to support him throughout a period of a year during his career. He alleged that:

he had been harassed by the senior managers regarding changes to his and his wife’s single contracts to a lower-paid joint contract;
he had been bullied and his grievance initially ignored;
his grievance had been partially upheld but the bullying had continued;
the employer’s conduct amounted to a fundamental breach of his contract of employment – the implied term of mutual trust and confidence (the cause of his resignation);
his dismissal had been unfair in all the circumstances.
The tribunal found that, in view of the cumulative effect of the course of conduct by the employer, there had been a fundamental breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence in the employee’s contract of employment, and it was that breach that had been the effective cause of the employee’s resignation. The employee’s claim of unfair constructive dismissal was upheld. The employer appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) against that decision. The employer’s appeal was dismissed.
(more…)

The case of Thornley v Land Securities Trillium Ltd [2005] concerned a claim for unfair and constructive dismissal by an employee who alleged that her employer imposed a new job description on her and she contended that her contract of employment was fundamentally breached by such changes to her duties imposed by her employer. The Tribunal upheld this claim.

The employee was originally employed by the BBC as an architect in its construction management department. On or around 12 November 2001, a substantial part of the construction department was transferred to the appellant employer, Thornley, under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1982.

Following this transfer, the employer announced its plans to restructure the department. This meant that the employee’s role would have changed to that of a managerial role from the hands-on architectural work she had previously done. On or around 1 October 2002, the employee attended a meeting where she indicated that she believed her position was being made redundant. She wrote to the employer stating that as a result of the proposed restructuring, her professional expertise was being dissipated and she was becoming de-skilled as an architect. She also stated that her position was being made redundant. On or around 8 December, she again wrote to her employer raising a grievance in respect of the new role, which she claimed was not comparable with the job specification of the role she had when she was transferred to the employer.

She brought a grievance hearing and following this hearing on 28 January 2003, the employee was informed that her position was not redundant. On 13 February, she resigned on the grounds of constructive dismissal. The employee then made an employment tribunal claim where she claimed constructive dismissal. The tribunal found that the effective cause of the employee’s resignation had been the imposition of the new job description, which fundamentally breached the terms of her contract, with the result that the employee was entitled to resign and to be treated as having been dismissed. The tribunal therefore upheld her claim. The employer appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
(more…)

In the case of Chouafi v London United Busways Ltd [2005], the claimant was employed as a bus driver by the defendant company. In October 2003, he was diagnosed with severe depression and was signed off work until February 2004. He was dismissed in January 2004 on the grounds of his medical condition and complained to the employment tribunal of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.

The Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that an employment tribunal shall not consider a complaint for unfair dismissal unless it is presented to the tribunal within three months of the effective date of termination of employment.

However this three-month limitation period may be extended if the tribunal considers that in the relevant case, it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented within the three months.

There are similar provisions under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

The tribunal decided that:-

The complaint of unfair dismissal had not been presented within the three-month time limit, pursuant to s 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996;
The complaint of disability discrimination had not been presented within the three-month time limit, pursuant to the para 3 Schedule 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and
Accordingly, the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims.
The employee appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) against the decision. The EAT held that:-
(more…)