Only where this amounts to a fundamental breach of contract or a substantial change in working conditions to an employee's material detriment, held the EAT in Cetinsoy v London United Busways Limited .
We would like to thank Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin for this report:
In this case bus drivers were employed by CentreWest working out of the Westbourne Park depot. The bus route on which they were employed was transferred to London United Busways. A consequence of the transfer was that the claimants were required to move to Stamford Brook. This was uncongenial to them and they resigned claiming constructive and unfair dismissal. However the employment tribunal, with which the EAT agreed, considered that there was no standing to bring an unfair dismissal claim. Although it was a contractual term that the employees worked out of Westbourne Park and the requirement to work at Stamford Brook was therefore a breach of contract, it was not a fundamental breach of contract. Furthermore, for the purposes of regulation 4(9) of TUPE the move did not involve a substantial change in working conditions to the employees' material detriment. The addition of between 30 minutes and 60 minutes travelling per day was not, in the opinion of the employment tribunal, substantial or to the material detriment of the employees. This kind of evaluation, held the EAT, is one based on a factual assessment and could only be set aside if the answer to the question was perverse or had not been approached properly. The EAT considered that the Employment Judge was entitled to come to the view he did, assisted by the practical experience of the employment tribunal lay members. The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) has ruled on the question of whether an employee is prevented by law from claiming constructive dismissal if he is in repudiatory breach of his contract. Our thanks to David Leslie of Lyons Davidson for preparing this case summary of the EAT decision in Atkinson v Community Gateway Association, following the Court of Session's decision in McNeill v Aberdeen City Council . An employee who might be dismissed for gross misconduct can jump before he is pushed. However, the misconduct will be relevant to remedy. The EAT confirmed that the employer had not breached the employee's ECHR article 8 right to respect for his private life and correspondence by reviewing personal emails of a sexual nature sent from work. The EAT also held that the employment tribunal was wrong to strike out a claim for detriment relating to a protected disclosure on the basis that the employer could not be vicariously liable for its employees' conduct in subjecting the Claimant to a detriment. Constructive Dismissal 28 August 2014
In light of the appeal findings, it was an error of law to strike out the claim without hearing all the evidence. That step should only be taken in rare cases.
DDA and reasonable adjustments
29 August 2004
CIPP Policy News Journal
08/04/2015, Page 118 of 521
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker