Employment law – Case summary

Intel Corporation v. Daw - CA - Personal Injury

• The employer was found liable for personal injury suffered by its employee as a result of work-related stress.
• The employee wrote a clear letter to her employer stating that things were going very badly and therefore, her breakdown was reasonably foreseeable.
• Employers cannot rely on the argument that the employee should have resigned; that does not eliminate their duty of care.
• The fact that an employer provides counselling services will not always be sufficient to discharge their duty of care. This will be dependant on the facts of each case.
• This case waters down the Sutherland decision.

Cumbria County Council v. Carlisle-Morgan - EAT - Whistleblowing

• This case confirms that an employer can be vicariously liable for the acts of an employee in whistleblowing claims.
• The test is the same as that in the case of Majrowski - there must be a “close connection” between the acts of the employee and their employment. An employer may be liable for the acts of its employee done in the course of employment; whether or not those actions would be actionable against the employee.

Brock v. Minerva Dental Limited - EAT - Unfair dismissal

• Can a dismissal be unilaterally withdrawn by an employer? The answer is no, but if the employee appeals they are expressly or impliedly agreeing that the employer can withdraw the dismissal.
• The statutory grievance procedures apply to constructive dismissal.

Metrobus v. Cook - EAT - Unfair dismissal

• The employer admitted that it hadn’t followed the statutory procedures. Therefore, the dismissal was automatically unfair. The employer appealed on the basis that the Employment Tribunal should have gone on further and made a finding on ordinary unfair dismissal. The EAT said that this was not necessary.
• The Employment Tribunal awarded an uplift of 40% which was also appealed. The EAT dismissed the appeal and said that the Employment Tribunal had given sufficient reason and 40% was suitable because there had been a blatant disregard of procedures.

Odoemelam v. The Whittington Hospital NHS Trust - EAT - Statutory grievance procedure

• An employee who is bringing a tribunal claim against an individual does not need to raise a grievance before issuing proceedings.

Essombe v. Nandos Chickenland Ltd - EAT - Procedure

• The employee had a camcorder at his disciplinary meetings and he had refused to sign off the Respondent’s notes of the meetings. The tribunal ordered disclosure. He refused to comply with the order to disclose and the tribunal struck out his claim.

The EAT refused his appeal - a deliberate decision to disobey the tribunal’s order prevented the tribunal from having the best evidence on which to base their findings of fact.