This episode features RSPB v Croucher a case about the scope of the duty to investigate when the employee has already admitted their guilt. We also look at the more recent case of CRO Ports v Wiltshire which shows how Croucher applies today.
In this episode I look at the 2004 House of Lords decision in Archibald v Fife Council. This is one of the leading cases on the duty to make reasonable adjustments and shows just how wide that duty can be.
We’re going seriously deep into the archives for this one with the 1909 decision in Addis v Gramophone Company Ltd. In this case the House of Lords looked at the compensation due to an employee who was dismissed without notice or explanation, causing potentially serious damage to his reputation. The decision has been controversial ever since and continues to be debated.
This case is about mobility clauses – and the implied terms that limit their application. It’s a neat illustration of an employer thinking that because the contract says they can do something, they don’t have to worry about how they go about doing it!
Cases referred to:
United Bank Ltd v Akhtar  IRLR 507
Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd  IRLR 347
In a special yuletide edition we talk about W Brooks & Son v Skinner  IRLR 379. It’s not exactly a classic – but it is about dismissing someone who got drunk at a Christmas party – and in December we all know that employment law is mainly about Christmas parties.
Actually this is quite a nice case that has something to say about zero tolerance policies – which links in to the very recent case of Arnold Clark Automobiles Ltd v Spoor– so it’s not just gratuitous attempt to link employment law to Christmas.