|Richmond Precision Engineering Ltd v Pearce|
|Court||Employment Appeal Tribunal|
|Citation(s)|| IRLR 179|
Richmond Precision Engineering Ltd v Pearce  IRLR 179 is a UK labour law case, concerning redundancy.
Mr Pearce was offered a new contract with the company that had bought his employer's business. Pay was lower, hours were more, holidays were reduced and the occupational pension and fringe benefits were gone. He rejected the offer and claimed unfair dismissal.
The Tribunal upheld Mr Pearce's unfair dismissal claim, and Richmond Precision Engineering appealed.
Beldam J in the EAT overturned the Tribunal. The test was whether a reasonable employer could have offered the same terms in the circumstances, including ones disadvantageous or advantageous to both parties. The employee being worse off was not a sufficient reason.
Merely because there are disadvantages to the employee, it does not, by any means, follow that the employer has acted unreasonably in treating his failure to accept the terms which they have offered as a reason for dismissal.
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.
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 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.
O'Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc  ICR 728 was a UK labour law case, in which a bare majority held that a requirement for a contract is "mutuality of obligation" between the parties, which was thought to mean an ongoing duty to offer and accept work. It has been consistently doubted, and its outcome reversed by legislation, and its reasoning superseded by Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher, which states that the only "mutual" obligations that are required is the consideration of work for a quid pro quo.
Taylor v Connex South Eastern Ltd (5.7.2000) Appeal No: EAT/1243/99, is a UK labour law case, concerning the TUPE Regulations.
Redfearn v Serco Ltd  EWCA Civ 659 and Redfearn v United Kingdom  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.
Johnson v Unisys Limited  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  ICR 221 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Gisda Cyf v Barratt  UKSC 41 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones  ICR 17 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd  ICR 156 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.
Hollister v National Farmers’ Union  ICR 542 is a UK labour law case concerning redundancy and unfair dismissal.
Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families UKSC 14 and  UKSC 36 is a UK labour law case, concerning the test for when the continued used of a fixed term contract is objectively justified, and when employees are covered by employment rights during work abroad. The case was joined with Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families v Fletcher.
Lawson v Serco Ltd  UKHL 3 is a UK labour law case, concerning the test for when workers are covered by employment rights when they work abroad.
System Floors (UK) Ltd v Daniel  ICR 54 is a UK labour law case, concerning the construction of terms in a contract of employment.
Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Botham v Ministry of Defence UKSC 58 is a UK labour law case, concerning wrongful dismissal.
Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson  ICR 323 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal.
Stefanko v Doherty and Maritime Hotel Ltd  IRLR 322 (EAT) is a UK labour law case, concerning.