agreement in the setting of the surrounding circumstances presented the principal elements of employment. Additionally, there was a sufficient degree of control over the individuals to preclude them being independent contractors. The Court of Appeal noted that both parties signed a document referring to "this employment agreement" and that was an expression of their intentions confirming the objective analysis of the legal position.
Constructive Dismissal: The Correct Test
14 October 2013
In order to successfully bring a claim for constructive dismissal, must the contractual breach by the employer be the principal reason for the employee's resignation?
No, says the EAT in Wright v North Ayrshire Council .
Daniel Barnett reports:
It is sufficient that the repudiatory breach "played a part in the dismissal" in accordance with CA authority in Nottingham County Council v Meikle.
The Claimant was a care at home assistant until she resigned. The first instance tribunal found, inter alia, that the Claimant's three grievances had not been properly answered. The EAT was satisfied that the tribunal considered the contractual breaches serious enough to constitute a repudiatory breach/es. However, the tribunal dismissed the claim on the basis that the Claimant's caring responsibilities for her partner who had recently suffered a stroke were "the effective cause"• of her resignation rather than her employer's conduct, applying the EAT case Jones v Sirl . The EAT ruled that the first instance tribunal misinterpreted the meaning of the "effective cause"• criterion as clarified by the CA in Meikle and the EAT case Abbey Cars (West Horndon) Ltd v Ford . Rather than being 'the' effective cause it is enough that the repudiatory breach was 'an' effective cause, with no requirement that it be the most important cause. The extent of the role played by the breach will be taken account of in calculating the compensation award.
Unfair Dismissal: Redundancy and reorganisation
25 October 2013
Can an employer consider a potentially redundant candidate for an alternative role fairly, if one candidate is aware of the full job description but the other is not?
No, according to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Somerset CC v Chaloner .
Daniel Barnett’s Employment law bulletin provides the detail:
When the Respondent suffered a downturn, it was proposed that four senior management posts be reduced to two vacancies, one being Business Development Manager ('BDM'). Based on the job description, the Claimant considered her role comparable to the vacancy and she applied.
Upon further review, the Respondent’s finances were worse than initially thought and so the re-organisation was extended to other management, including the Finance Officer who
CIPP Policy News Journal
16/04/2014, Page 118 of 519
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker