The Court of Appeal has overruled a decision by an employment tribunal (which had been upheld by the EAT), to the effect that at the end 2002 Mr Sandhu had resigned rather than been dismissed from his job with Jan De Rijk Transport.
His unfair dismissal claims had been rejected on the grounds that he simply had not been dismissed but the Court of Appeal has ruled that this was wrong.
On the facts, by agreeing terms for ending his employment, Mr Sandhu had done no more than attempt to "salvage what he could from the inevitable fact that he was going to be dismissed ...... the very antithesis of free, unpressurised negotiation".
In coming to its conclusion that the termination of Mr Sandhu's employment was by dismissal not resignation the Court was critical of the procedures used by the employer saying "Employers of the size of the respondent should not be encouraged to behave as the respondent has done, nor should they think that proper procedures for disciplining or dismissing their employees are unnecessary"
Sandhu v Jan de Rijk Transport Ltd
This is a copy (with permission) of a summary prepared by www.emplaw.co.uk to whom I [extend my thanks.]
Friday, 18 May 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment