Case round-ups in brief

This month’s case round ups in brief

Range of reasonable responses test does not apply in redundancy cases

Where an employee is dismissed by reason of redundancy, the EAT has held
that in considering the fairness of that dismissal, a tribunal should not apply
the band of reasonable responses test. The EAT felt that this test was
appropriate only in mis-conduct cases. In redundancy cases, the issue is
whether the employer has acted reasonably. This appears questionable, however,
and should have relatively little impact on employment tribunal practice.  (Dundee City Council v Selbie, EAT.)

Failure to give full details of case against bully did not render
dismissal unfair

An employee complained of serious bullying and physical violence from a
fellow employee. The victim refused to give a statement and the employer took
medical advice which stated the employee’s health was at risk if she was forced
to give one. No other witnesses came forward. The EAT held the bully’s
dismissal had been fair even though the allegation had only been put to her in
very general terms at the initial disciplinary stage. (Turnbull v Mecca
Bingo Ltd, EAT.)

TUPE transfer can take effect in stages

Regulation 3 of TUPE provides that a transfer of an undertaking may be
effected by "a series of two or more transactions". The EAT confirmed
the transactions need not follow immediately after each other. In this case
TUPE applies even where the transactions occurred four months apart. (Key
Communications Ltd v Rose and others, EAT.)

Comments are closed.