| Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of England and Wales |
| Citation(s) | [1978] ICR 221 |
| Transcript(s) | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Lord Denning, LORD JUSTICE LAWTON, LORD JUSTICE EVELEIGH |
| Keywords | |
| Unfair dismissal | |
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.
Mr Sharp was suspended without pay for 5 days because of his absences. This put him in financial difficulty, the welfare officer would not help, and so he quit so he could collect holiday pay immediately. He then claimed constructive unfair dismissal.
The Employment Tribunal held that the company ‘ought to have leant over backwards’ to help Mr Sharp. One member, dissenting, argued Mr Sharp should have again visited the welfare officer. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the ruling, but only on the basis that the Tribunal had made findings of fact that were apparently not perverse.
The Court of Appeal reversed the Tribunal and held that Mr Sharp had not been constructively dismissed at all. Lord Denning MR noted that there was a dispute about how to assess what was a constructive dismissal, partly as Megaw LJ in Turner v London Transport Executive [1977] ICR 952, 964, said that the test for whether there was a dismissal under what is now the Employment Rights Act 1996 section 95(1)(c) was the same as whether the dismissal was fair. But instead the ordinary ‘contract test’ should apply so that a dismissal must first be established as follows. According to Lord Denning MR,
If the employer is guilty of conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract, then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any further performance. If he does so, then he terminates the contract by reason of the employer’s conduct.
Hence, the Tribunal’s ‘whimsical’ decision was wrong, because they failed to separate the question of fairness from whether there was a dismissal. Mr Sharp left of his own accord.
United Kingdom labour law regulates the relations between workers, employers and trade unions. People at work in the UK can rely upon a minimum set of employment rights, which are found in Acts of Parliament, Regulations, common law and equity. This includes the right to a minimum wage of £9.50 for over-23-year-olds from April 2022 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.
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.
In United Kingdom law, the concept of wrongful dismissal refers exclusively to dismissal contrary to the contract of employment, which effectively means premature termination, either due to insufficient notice or lack of grounds. Although wrongful dismissal is usually associated with lack of notice sometimes it can also be caused by arbitrary dismissal where no notice was required but certain grounds were specified in the contract as being the only ones available but none existed.
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.
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.
United Kingdom agency worker law refers to the law which regulates people's work through employment agencies in the United Kingdom. Though statistics are disputed, there are currently between half a million and one and a half million agency workers in the UK, and probably over 17,000 agencies. As a result of judge made law and absence of statutory protection, agency workers have more flexible pay and working conditions than permanent staff covered under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
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.
Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd [1982] ICR 693 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Buckland v Bournemouth University [2010] EWCA Civ 121 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones [1983] ICR 17 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.
British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift [1981] IRLR 91 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.
HSBC Bank plc v Madden and Post Office v Foley [2000] EWCA Civ 330 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.
Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families[2011] UKSC 14 and [2011] 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 [2006] UKHL 3 is a UK labour law case, concerning the test for when workers are covered by employment rights when they work abroad.
Société Générale, London Branch v Geys [2012] UKSC 63 is a UK labour law case, concerning wrongful dismissal. The Supreme Court's decision was a significant ruling in regard to the competing automatic and elective theories of contractual repudiation, affirming the elective theory.