header-logo header-logo

10 June 2011 / John McMullen
Issue: 7469 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Adopting the right course

John McMullen reflects on what’s reasonable in unfair dismissal cases

It has long been settled law that when deciding whether a dismissal is fair or unfair, an employment tribunal should consider the reasonableness of the employer’s conduct and not whether it considers the dismissal to be fair.

The tribunal must not substitute its own view as to what is the right course to adopt for that of the employer. In many, although not all, cases there is a band of reasonable responses to the employee’s conduct or other situation facing the employer within which one employer might take one view and another, quite reasonably, another. If a dismissal falls within the band it is fair. If it falls outside the band it is unfair.

Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones

This canon was laid down by the seminal EAT case of Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones [1982] IRLR 439 (per Browne-Wilkinson P, applying dicta of Lord Denning MR in British Leyland (UK) Ltd v Swift [1981] IRLR 91, CA).

Some 20 years

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll