header-logo header-logo

EMPLOYMENT LAW

14 March 2008
Issue: 7312 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Webb v Airbus UK Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 49, [2008] All ER (D) 94 (Feb)

Under s 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), it is open to a tribunal to find that a dismissal for misconduct was fair, even though the employer took account of the employee’s previous similar misconduct, which had been the subject of an expired final warning.

The question to be determined under s 98(4) is whether or not the employer had acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating the reason for dismissal as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee. The fact that the warning had expired did not make the earlier misconduct an irrelevant circumstance under s 98(4).

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

A good book, a glass of chilled Albarino, and being creative for pleasure help Liz McGrath balance the rigours of complex bundles and being Head of Chambers

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Firm welcomes director in its financial services financial regulatory team

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Partner appointment in firm’s equity capital markets team

NEWS

Walkers and runners will take in some of London’s finest views at the 16th annual charity event

Law school partners with charity to give free assistance to litigants in need

Could the Labour government usher in a new era for digital assets, ask Keith Oliver, head of international, and Amalia Neenan FitzGerald, associate, Peters & Peters, in this week’s NLJ

An extra bit is being added to case citations to show the pecking order of the judges concerned. Former district judge Stephen Gold has the details, in his ‘Civil way’ column in this week’s NLJ

The Labour government’s position on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is not yet clear

back-to-top-scroll