Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd

Last updated

Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd
CourtCourt of Appeal
Citation(s)[1982] ICR 693
Keywords
Unfair dismissal

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.

Contents

Facts

Ms Woods was Chief Secretary and Accounts Clerk and the business’ new owners thought she was overpaid. She went to solicitors after they requested she accept less or work more. They suggested job title changes, and were planning to insist on them. Ms Woods’ solicitor advised her to resign and claim constructive dismissal. ‘All trust and confidence was lost on both sides.’

The Employment Tribunal held there was no constructive dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal would have reversed this, but felt they were bound by Pedersen v Camden LBC . [1]

Judgment

Lord Denning MR that the tribunal could not be overturned on its finding of fact unless there was a misdirection in law or the decision was perverse. He recounted Horton v McMurty [2] where giving hints to the jury Pollock CB said ‘Gentlemen, I believe it is for you to decide whether this was a proper ground of dismissal - but if it be a matter of law… my opinion is that it is a good ground of dismissal.’

As an addendum, he added, ‘I hope that this may lead to the shortening of the hearings before the industrial tribunals and the length of their reasons. At any rate it should reduce the number of appeals to the appeal tribunal.’

Watkins LJ concurred, on even stronger grounds saying, ‘The obdurate refusal of the employee to accept conditions very properly and sensibly being sought to be imposed upon her was unreasonable.’

See also

Notes

  1. [1981] ICR 674
  2. (1860) 5 H&N 667, 678

Related Research Articles

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.

<i>Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner</i> United Kingdom employment law court case

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.

James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd [2007] IRLR 296 is a legal case in the United Kingdom on the definition of a worker under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that lack of "mutuality of obligation" does not affect the status of being an employee, and therefore coverage under the 1998 Act.

O'Hanlon v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2007] EWCA Civ 283 is a UK labour law case concerning disability discrimination.

<i>Villalba v Merrill Lynch & Co Inc</i>

Villalba v Merrill Lynch & Co Inc [2007] ICR 469 is a UK labour law case, concerning sex discrimination and equal pay. It was the largest claim to be lodged in the United Kingdom, but was rejected in the Employment Tribunal and on appeal.

Eagle Place Services Ltd v Rudd [2010] IRLR 486 is a UK labour law case, concerning disability discrimination.

Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd v Lineham [1992] ICR 183 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.

<i>Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp</i>

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.

<i>Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp</i>

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.

<i>Gisda Cyf v Barratt</i>

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.

Qua v John Ford Morrison Solicitors [2003] ICR 482 is a UK labour law case concerning emergency leave to care for children.

<i>Rutherford v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry</i>

Rutherford v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2006] UKHL 19 is a UK labour law case concerning sex and age discrimination. It also contains the test for indirect discrimination, based on statistical comparisons.

Jones v University of Manchester [1993] ICR 474 is a leading discrimination case relevant for UK labour law, concerning the test for justification of indirect discrimination.

<i>Serco Ltd v Lawson</i>

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.

<i>Fitzpatrick v British Railways Board</i>

Fitzpatrick v British Railways Board [1992] ICR 221 is a UK labour law case, concerning collective bargaining.

<i>Société Générale, London Branch v Geys</i> United Kingdom labour law case

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.

Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd v Quashie [2012] EWCA Civ 1735 is a UK labour law case concerning employment status.

References