Issue:
8007
/
Categories:
Features
,
Employment
,
Tribunals
,
TUPE
,
Disciplinary&grievance procedures
Before he shoots off for Christmas duties, Ian Smith unwraps some of the latest gifts from the Employment Appeal Tribunal & Court of Appeal
- Termination by the employer; the effect of a successful appeal.
- The duty to mitigate loss in a whistleblowing case.
- TUPE and service provision changes; the activities must remain fundamentally the same.
- Collective agreements are not subject to the equitable remedy of rectification.
Of the four cases considered in this brief (three in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and one in the Court of Appeal), the first two concern interesting sub-issues in areas of otherwise quite settled law; the third is a useful factual example of one of the key requirements for there to be a ‘service provision change’ in TUPE law; and in the fourth, the Court of Appeal has rectified an ‘adventurous’ first-instance decision on (you’ve guessed it) rectification.
The effect of successful appeals
The position of an employee faced with dismissal who uses an internal appeal system raises two important points of law:
(1) On the one
