Ian Smith considers the latest employment law developments
Two decisions reported in this month’s column concern basic (but not therefore easy) points of unfair dismissal law. The third case is yet another “interesting” case on TUPE; it is on unusual facts, but could still be of some significance generally on the definition of a “service provision change”.
Reasonableness of a dismissal (i): risk of harm to career
In Monji v Boots Management Services Ltd UKEAT/0292/13 the tribunal found the claimant’s dismissal for suspected theft of store goods fair substantively and procedurally. On appeal, the claimant’s argument was that, as a professional pharmacist, a fair dismissal would have a particularly acute effect on her future livelihood and that this fact had not been taken sufficiently into account by the tribunal as a factor on its own (potentially raising the bar on the level of investigation needed), as required by the decision of the EAT in A v B [2003] IRLR 405, [2003] All ER (D) 184 (May) and more particularly that of the Court of Appeal in Salford Royal NHS FoundationTrust v Roldan
