| Port of London Authority v Payne | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of England and Wales |
| Citations | [1993] EWCA Civ 26, [1994] IRLR 9 |
| Keywords | |
| Unfair dismissal | |
Port of London Authority v Payne [1993] EWCA Civ 26 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal and the remedy of reinstatement.
The Port of London Authority attempted to dismiss trade union officials. In July 1989 they wished to reduce workers at Tilbury. Dockworkers were dismissed and 17 were shop stewards. They claimed the dismissals were actually motivated by their being union officials. An industrial tribunal found the complaints to be justified. It ordered re-engagement under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 section 69 for 12 applicants, and gave compensation to the others. The Port of London Authority did not comply with the orders. Under section 75A a new tribunal found that on the balance of probabilities it was practicable to comply with the order, and so made a special award of compensation.
The EAT upheld the Port of London Authority's appeal against the re-engagement order.
The Court of Appeal denied reinstatement because the employer had shown there were no vacancies and it would be disruptive to ask others to take voluntary redundancy. The Tribunal had failed to give due weight to the employer's commercial judgment about that practicability, unless the employer was to be disbelieved.
Neill LJ said the following.
The employer does not have to show that reinstatement or reengagement was impossible. It is a matter of what is practicable in the circumstances of the employer’s business at the relevant time.
United Kingdom labour law regulates the relations between workers, employers and trade unions. People at work in the UK have a minimum set of employment rights, from Acts of Parliament, Regulations, common law and equity. This includes the right to a minimum wage of £11.44 for over-23-year-olds from April 2023 under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Working Time Regulations 1998 give the right to 28 days paid holidays, breaks from work, and attempt to limit long working hours. The Employment Rights Act 1996 gives the right to leave for child care, and the right to request flexible working patterns. The Pensions Act 2008 gives the right to be automatically enrolled in a basic occupational pension, whose funds must be protected according to the Pensions Act 1995. Workers must be able to vote for trustees of their occupational pensions under the Pensions Act 2004. In some enterprises, such as universities or NHS foundation trusts, staff can vote for the directors of the organisation. In enterprises with over 50 staff, workers must be negotiated with, with a view to agreement on any contract or workplace organisation changes, major economic developments or difficulties. The UK Corporate Governance Code recommends worker involvement in voting for a listed company's board of directors but does not yet follow international standards in protecting the right to vote in law. Collective bargaining, between democratically organised trade unions and the enterprise's management, has been seen as a "single channel" for individual workers to counteract the employer's abuse of power when it dismisses staff or fix the terms of work. Collective agreements are ultimately backed up by a trade union's right to strike: a fundamental requirement of democratic society in international law. Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 strike action is protected when it is "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute".
In employment law, constructive dismissal occurs when an employee resigns due to the employer creating a hostile work environment. This often serves as a tactic for employers 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.
The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that protects whistleblowers from detrimental treatment by their employer. Influenced by various financial scandals and accidents, along with the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the bill was introduced to Parliament by Richard Shepherd and given government support, on the condition that it become an amendment to the Employment Rights Act 1996. After receiving the Royal Assent on 2 July 1998, the Act came into force on 2 July 1999. It protects employees who make disclosures of certain types of information, including evidence of illegal activity or damage to the environment, from retribution from their employers, such as dismissal or being passed over for promotion. In cases where such retribution takes place the employee may bring a case before an employment tribunal, which can award compensation.
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.
Sobeys Stores v. Yeomans and Labour Standards Tribunal (NS) [1989] 1 S.C.R. 238 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on determining if a tribunal has the authority to hear a dispute, and more generally, the interpretation of section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
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. 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.
The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that as of 2011 defines the fundamental structure and authority for the encouragement, regulation and enforcement of workplace health, safety and welfare within the United Kingdom.
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.
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.
Wilson v United Kingdom [2002] ECHR 552 is a United Kingdom labour law and European labour law case concerning discrimination by employers against their workers who join and take action through trade unions. After a long series of appeals through the UK court system, the European Court of Human Rights held that ECHR article 11 protects the fundamental right of people to join a trade union, engage in union related activities and take action as a last resort to protect their interests.
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.
R (Seymour-Smith) v Secretary of State for Employment [2000] UKHL 12 and (1999) C-167/97 is a landmark case in United Kingdom labour law and European labour law on the qualifying period of work before an employee accrues unfair dismissal rights. It was held by the House of Lords and the European Court of Justice that a two-year qualifying period had a disparate impact on women given that significantly fewer women worked long enough to be protected by the unfair dismissal law, but that the government could, at that point in the 1990s, succeed in an objective justification of increasing recruitment by employers.
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.
South African labour law regulates the relationship between employers, employees and trade unions in the Republic of South Africa.
In law, wrongful dismissal, also called wrongful termination or wrongful discharge, is a situation in which an employee's contract of employment has been terminated by the employer, where the termination breaches one or more terms of the contract of employment, or a statute provision or rule in employment law. Laws governing wrongful dismissal vary according to the terms of the employment contract, as well as under the laws and public policies of the jurisdiction.
Fitzpatrick v British Railways Board [1992] ICR 221 is a UK labour law case, concerning collective bargaining.
Unfair dismissal in Australia is the right to not be unfairly dismissed from work in the Fair Work Act 2009. This is a core part of Australian labour law, and refers to an unlawful act of employment termination due to it being an unfair action on the employee by the employer.