Disciplinary and Grievance Matters in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Janice Croft v Broadstairs & St Peter's Town Council/
    • Court of Appeal
    • 15 Apr 2003

    That left the council in the position of employers who were entitled to expect ordinary robustness in the claimant in an employment context, including disciplinary matters, in which she had certainly never been involved before. Such a breakdown was not the reasonably foreseeable product of the conduct concerned, and therefore the council are entitled to succeed in the appeal.

  • Johnson v Unisys Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 22 Mar 2001

    Section 1(1) of the 1996 Act provides that upon commencing employment, an employee shall be provided with "a written statement of particulars of employment". This includes, but is not limited to, the "terms and conditions" of employment concerning various matters, including "the length of notice which the employee is obliged to give and entitled to receive to terminate his contract of employment" (section 1(4)(e)).

    Consistently with these provisions, Mr Johnson was written a letter of engagement which stated his salary and summarised the terms and conditions of his employment, including the notice period. Apart from the statement that in the event of gross misconduct, the company could terminate his employment without notice, it made no reference to disciplinary matters.

  • Skidmore v Dartford & Gravesham NHS Trust
    • Court of Appeal
    • 15 Jan 2002

    Thirdly, it is to my mind relevant that the allegations against the appellant raised issues which, at least to a degree, needed medical experience or expertise for their determination. Despite Mr Douglas' attempts to persuade us to the contrary, it seems to me that some medical experience was required to give proper consideration to that proffered explanation. The internal disciplinary procedure does not necessarily involve anyone with medical experience determining such an issue.

  • Eastwood v Magnox Electric Plc
    • House of Lords
    • 15 Jul 2004

    An employee's remedy for unfair dismissal, whether actual or constructive, is the remedy provided by statute. If before his dismissal, whether actual or constructive, an employee has acquired a cause of action at law, for breach of contract or otherwise, that cause of action remains unimpaired by his subsequent unfair dismissal and the statutory rights flowing therefrom. By definition, in law such a cause of action exists independently of the dismissal.

  • Fuller v London Borough of Brent
    • Court of Appeal
    • 15 Mar 2010

    The ET judgment must be read carefully to see if it has in fact correctly applied the law which it said was applicable. The reading of an ET decision must not, however, be so fussy that it produces pernickety critiques. Over-analysis of the reasoning process; being hypercritical of the way in which the decision is written; focusing too much on particular passages or turns of phrase to the neglect of the decision read in the round: those are all appellate weaknesses to avoid.

  • Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
    • Court of Appeal
    • 11 Mar 2003

    It is also of importance to note that the time limits are exercised strictly in employment and industrial cases. When tribunals consider their discretion to consider a claim out of time on just and equitable grounds there is no presumption that they should do so unless they can justify failure to exercise the discretion. A tribunal cannot hear a complaint unless the applicant convinces it that it is just and equitable to extend time.

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results