| Luke v Stoke City Council | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of England and Wales |
| Decided | 24 July 2007 |
| Citation(s) | [2007] EWCA Civ 761 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Mummery LJ, Laws LJ and Moses LJ |
| Keywords | |
| Implied terms, wage deductions | |
Luke v Stoke-on-Trent City Council [2007] EWCA Civ 761 is a UK labour law case, concerning the test for an implied term.
Mrs Beryl Luke was a special needs teacher for Stoke. She had a dispute with the headmaster and went off sick from October 2002 to April 2003. She alleged bullying and harassment and the council commissioned an independent report on it, which rejected all but one allegation. She would not accept the conclusions. She refused their proposal that she be found equivalent hours elsewhere, because she wanted to return. The council stopped paying her in February 2004. She claimed unlawful deduction of wages.
The Employment Tribunal dismissed her claim, saying the council acted reasonably saying she could not return to work unless she accepted the report's conclusions. It was an implied term that she be required to work elsewhere. Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed her appeal.
Mummery LJ, Laws LJ and Moses LJ also dismissed her appeal. In fact, it had not been necessary to imply any term. The express agreement could be construed as a whole in the context of surrounding circumstances whoed[ check spelling ] it was the claimant's duty to comply with the council's reasonable requirements as long as they were within the contract's scope. Nothing entitled her to set terms on which she could return to work or continue getting a salary for not teaching there. It was a reasonable requirement to return and accept the ‘action plan’ and therefore the council was not obliged to keep paying her.
In employment law, constructive dismissal, also called constructive discharge or constructive termination, occurs when an employee resigns as a result of the employer creating a hostile work environment. Since the resignation was not truly voluntary, it is, in effect, a termination. For example, when an employer places extraordinary and unreasonable work demands on an employee to obtain their resignation, this can constitute a constructive dismissal.
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.
Nethermere Ltd v Gardiner And Another [1984] ICR 612 is a UK labour law case in the Court of Appeal in the field of home work and vulnerable workers. Many labour and employment rights, such as unfair dismissal, in Britain depend on one's status as an "employee" rather than being "self-employed", or some other "worker". This case stands for the proposition that where "mutuality of obligation" between employers and casual or temporary workers exists to offer work and accept it, the court will find that the applicant has a "contract of employment" and is therefore an employee.
Redfearn v Serco Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 659 and Redfearn v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 1878 is a UK labour law and European Court of Human Rights case. It held that UK law was deficient in not allowing a potential claim based on discrimination for one's political belief. Before the case was decided, the Equality Act 2010 provided a remedy to protect political beliefs, though it had not come into effect when this case was brought forth.
Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council [1990] EWCA Civ 13 is a leading English contract law case on the issue of offer and acceptance in relation to an invitation to tender. In it the Court of Appeal of England and Wales decided that tenders and requests for tenders are accompanied by a collateral contract implying that the requestor will give due consideration to any timely bid.
Archibald v Fife Council [2004] UKHL 32 is a UK labour law case, concerning the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
O'Hanlon v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2007] EWCA Civ 283 is a UK labour law case concerning disability discrimination.
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.
Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal 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.
Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council [2007] IRLR 434 is a UK labour law case, concerning indirect discrimination on grounds of religion. The United Kingdom Employment Appeals Tribunal in London (EAT) dismissed the appeal in respect of discrimination and/or harassment, but awarded £1,100 to the plaintiff for victimisation, uprated by 10% as a result of the LEA's having failed to follow the statutory grievance protocol.
In labour law, unfair dismissal is an act of employment termination made without good reason or contrary to the country's specific legislation.
Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41 is a landmark UK labour law and English contract law case decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, concerning the scope of statutory protection of rights for working individuals. It confirmed the view, also taken by the Court of Appeal, that the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account when deciding whether a person counts as an employee, to get employment rights. As Lord Clarke said,
the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account in deciding whether the terms of any written agreement in truth represent what was agreed and the true agreement will often have to be gleaned from all the circumstances of the case, of which the written agreement is only a part. This may be described as a purposive approach to the problem.
Henry v London Greater Transport Services Ltd[2002] EWCA 488 is a UK labour law case concerning the scope of protection for people to employment rights. It took the view that an employment contract requires
Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357 is a UK labour law case concerning discrimination against same sex couples by a religious person in a public office.
James v Greenwich London Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 35 is a UK labour law case, concerning implied contracts for workers who work through employment agencies. Its opinion was reversed by the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 and superseded by the more recent Supreme Court decision by Lord Clarke in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher.
Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 217 is a UK labour law case, concerning the employment rights of agency workers.
Reda v Flag Ltd [2002] UKPC 38 is a case from Bermuda law, advised upon by the Privy Council, that is relevant for UK labour law and UK company law concerning the dismissal of a director.
Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Botham v Ministry of Defence[2011] UKSC 58 is a UK labour law case, concerning wrongful dismissal.
Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 is a landmark case in UK labour law and company law on employment rights. The UK Supreme Court held the transport corporation, Uber, must pay its drivers the national living wage, and at least 28 days paid holidays, from the time that drivers log onto the Uber app, and are willing and able to work. The Supreme Court decision was unanimous, and upheld the Court of Appeal, Employment Appeal Tribunal, and Employment Tribunal. The Supreme Court, and all courts below, left open whether the drivers are also employees but indicated that the criteria for employment status was fulfilled, given Uber's control over drivers.