| Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of England and Wales |
| Citation | [1974] ICR 323, [1974] IRLR 213 |
| Keywords | |
| Unfair dismissal | |
Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson [1974] ICR 323 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal.
Mr. Abernethy, a civil engineer, claimed unfair dismissal under the Industrial Relations Act 1971, Section 24, from his firm of 20 years, Mott, Hay and Anderson, after declining a secondment to work for the Greater London Council and then being told he was redundant. He was offered £850 in redundancy and £750 ex gratia. They argued he was either redundant or incapable of doing the work the employers wanted him to do.
The Tribunal held he was not redundant, but the employers had shown he was incapable and it was not unfair. The National Industrial Relations Court dismissed his appeal. Unwillingness to work related to capability.
The Court of Appeal held the dismissal was fair, and the employer did not act unfairly by failing initially to give the principal reason to the employee for dismissal. Lord Denning MR said the following:
"I turn now to the first point of law which Mr. Pain raises. The employer has under the Industrial Relations Act 1971 to “show” the reasons for the dismissal. That is clear from section 24(6) . It must be a reason in existence at the time when he is given notice. It must be the principal reason which operated on the employers' mind: see section 24(1)(a) . It should, I think, be known to the man already before he is given notice, or he must be told it at the time. But I do not think that the reason has got to be correctly labelled at the time of dismissal. It may be that the employer is wrong in law as labelling it as dismissal for redundancy. In that case the wrong label can be set aside. The employer can only rely on the reason in fact for which he dismissed the man, if the facts are sufficiently known or made known to the man. The reason in this case was — on the facts — already known or sufficiently made known to Mr. Abernethy. The wrong label of 'redundancy' does not affect the point. The second point is whether the reason here was such as to justify the dismissal. Under section 24(2)(a) a reason would be sufficient if it 'related to the capability or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do.' And 'capability' is stated in section 24(7) to mean 'capability assessed by reference to skill, aptitude, health or any other physical or mental quality.' In this particular case the reason was the inflexibility of Mr. Abernethy and his lack of adaptability. That seems to me to come within his aptitude and mental qualities. He had not the capability for performing the work which he was employed to do. That was a reason sufficient to justify his dismissal."
Cairns LJ held that although the employer was wrong to say he was redundant to begin with, it could reformulate the real reason for dismissal as a different one, and if that was fair, it was valid. An employer could give a false reason because he wished to not hurt the worker's feelings, though he might later have trouble giving evidence that the real reason was fair, and it could constitute a breach of procedural fairness in not giving the worker the accurate charge. Alternatively there could be a mistake of language.
A reason for the dismissal of an employee is a set of facts known to the employer, or it may be of beliefs held by him, which cause him to dismiss the employee. If at the time of his dismissal the employer gives a reason for it, that is no doubt evidence, at any rate as against him, as to the real reason, but it does not necessarily constitute the real reason.
James LJ concurred.
In employment law, constructive dismissal, also called disguised dismissal, constructive discharge or constructive termination, occurs when an employee resigns due to the employer creating a hostile work environment. This often serves as a tactic to avoid payment of statutory severance pay and benefits. In essence, although the employee resigns, the resignation is not truly voluntary but rather a response to intolerable working conditions imposed by the employer. These conditions can include unreasonable work demands, harassment, or significant changes to the employment terms without the employee’s consent.
Unfair dismissal in the United Kingdom is the part of UK labour law that requires fair, just and reasonable treatment by employers in cases where a person's job could be terminated. The Employment Rights Act 1996 regulates this by saying that employees are entitled to a fair reason before being dismissed, based on their capability to do the job, their conduct, whether their position is economically redundant, on grounds of a statute, or some other substantial reason. It is automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee, regardless of length of service, for becoming pregnant, or for having previously asserted certain specified employment rights. Otherwise, an employee must have worked for two years. This means an employer only terminates an employee's job lawfully if the employer follows a fair procedure, acts reasonably and has a fair reason.
The Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006 known colloquially as TUPE and pronounced TU-pee, are the United Kingdom's implementation of the European Union Transfer of Undertakings Directive. They are also used in Ireland. It is an important part of UK labour law, protecting employees whose business is being transferred to another business. The 2006 regulations replace the old 1981 regulations which implemented the original Directive. The law has been amended in 2014 and 2018, and various provisions within the 2006 Regulations have altered.
A severance package is pay and benefits that employees may be entitled to receive when they leave employment at a company unwillfully. In addition to their remaining regular pay, it may include some of the following:
The Employment Rights Act 1996 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament passed by the Conservative government to codify existing law on individual rights in UK labour law.
The New Zealand Employment Relations Act 2000 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand. It was substantially amended by the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2001 and by the ERAA 2004.
Taylor v Connex South Eastern Ltd (5.7.2000) Appeal No: EAT/1243/99, is a UK labour law case, concerning the TUPE Regulations.
Johnson v Unisys Limited [2001] UKHL 13 is a leading UK labour law case on the measure of damages for unfair dismissal and the nature of the contract of employment.
Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] ICR 221 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd [1982] ICR 156 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.
In labour law, unfair dismissal is an act of employment termination made without good reason or contrary to the country's specific legislation.
Lesney Products & Co v Nolan [1976] EWCA Civ 8 is a UK labour law case concerning redundancy.
South African labour law regulates the relationship between employers, employees and trade unions in the Republic of South Africa.
Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd [2012] UKSC 1 is a UK labour law case, concerning the test for when workers are covered by employment rights when they work abroad.
Safeway Stores plc v Burrell [1997] ICR 523 is a UK labour law case, concerning redundancy.
Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd [1999] UKHL 30 is a UK labour law case, concerning redundancy, specifically the interpretation of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Richmond Precision Engineering Ltd v Pearce [1985] IRLR 179 is a UK labour law case, concerning redundancy.
University of Stirling v UCU[2015] UKSC 26 is a UK labour law case, concerning the information and consultation in the European Union.
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker is a leading Australian judgment of the High Court which unanimously and firmly rejected the proposition that contracts of employment in Australia should contain an implied term of mutual trust and confidence.