ET decisions including: Tesco search, Royal Mail Absence

terra_ferma

Interesting ET decisions:

http://www.xperthr.co.uk/article/102252/in-the-employment-tribunals--may-2010.aspx

Deductions without consent or notification were designed to destroy employment relationship
Jones v Leather Sofa Company ET/1607568/08
Date added: 27 May 2010
constructive dismissal | unlawful deductions from wages
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of pay in an employment relationship, and the danger to employers should they neglect that fact.
Mrs Jones was a manager at the Leather Sofa Company, and received a basic salary and commission, but was not given a contract of employment. Over a substantial period of time, Mrs Jones’s employer made a number of deductions and alterations to her wages, but without her consent or any notification. In August 2008, Mrs Jones resigned, stating that she was “no longer able to survive with the inconsistency of the pay levels”, and claimed constructive dismissal.
The tribunal stated that employees are entitled to “absolute clarity” as to the amount of money they are to receive for work, and that “anything to do with payment or non-payment of money can only be a fundamental term of the contract”. It follows that any breach of such a term will therefore be a fundamental breach of contract, and the tribunal found that the actions of Mrs Jones’s employer, in making repeated deductions without notification or consent, were designed to destroy the employment relationship between the parties. The tribunal therefore upheld Mrs Jones’s claims for constructive dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages, and awarded her over £7,000.

http://www.xperthr.co.uk/article/100547/in-the-employment-tribunals--march-2010.aspx

Employer wrong to include work-related absences when invoking attendance procedure
Bempong v Royal Mail Group Ltd ET/2300006/2009
Date added: 24 March 2010
unfair dismissal | attendance procedure | frequent absences | work-related health problems
An employment tribunal found that a postwoman had been unfairly dismissed after a series of absences. Her employer had invoked its attendance procedure after Ms Bempong was absent on 12 occasions over a three-year period. Although her employer had discounted a number of absences on the ground that they had been caused by accidents at work (including a 57-day absence after being attacked by a dog while delivering post), it had unreasonably included a period of sick leave caused by an accident at work where she was nearly run over by a van and a period of absence during which she was suffering from depression.



Operation of employer's stop and search procedure was fair
Hamill v Tesco plc ET/3302715/2009
Date added: 22 March 2010
constructive dismissal | employee suspected of theft | stop and search procedure
This case is an example of the operation of an effective (albeit not flawless) stop and search procedure by an employer that suspects an employee of theft. Mr Hamill, who worked on the tills in Tesco, was searched because of witness evidence that he was in possession of a £20 note while working on the tills, in contravention of Tesco's policy that till operatives not carry money with them while working. Mr Hamill later resigned and claimed constructive dismissal. The employment tribunal rejected his claim, despite some suggestions that the search had not been carried out in a private place and that he should have been accompanied by a representative during the search. The stop and search did not constitute a fundamental breach of Mr Hamill's contract of employment.


Dismissal for positive test for illegal drug was fair
Shepherd v Prismo Road Markings Ltd ET/2403360/09
Date added: 17 March 2010
unfair dismissal | drug testing policy
This recent tribunal decision shows the value of having - and following - a drug and alcohol policy. Mr Shepherd, a technologist, worked in Prismo’s research and development department. Prismo had a drug and alcohol policy, which was placed on its intranet, and which involved random testing of its employees for drug and alcohol consumption. In December 2008, Mr Shepherd was one of a number of employees selected for random drug testing. He tested positive for cannabis, and despite alleging that he had inhaled the drug passively, was dismissed for gross misconduct. Rejecting Mr Shepherd’s claim for unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that Prismo had legitimately relied on medical evidence showing that, with absolute certainty, he had smoked or consumed cannabis. The tribunal also held that, given the nature of Mr Shepherd’s job and Prismo’s business, summary dismissal was a reasonable sanction.

custardy

The accident at work issue is fairly common
I know of one postie who has just won their appeal,over 4 months after being dismissed
this was because RM included an accident on duty as one of 2 absences

terra_ferma

I posted the decisions because the same issues have come up here, so I thought they may be useful.

There have been a few posts Royal Mail's absence policy.

custardy

terra_ferma wrote: »

I posted the decisions because the same issues have come up here, so I thought they may be useful.

There have been a few posts Royal Mail's absence policy.

the problem is the ambiguity and a general bravado attitude to the attendance procdure by many managers
the attendence procedure states accidents on duty are usually disregardded,so theres scope for interpritation
Ive read the full notes on the case I mentioned and its full of quite blatent lies and evidence of managers consistently failing to follow procedures

If anyone is in this situation with RM,then i have access to most documents regarding RM procedures and can forward them on