Search Employment Law

Husband-and-wife chefs working at Buoy Café were dismissed after an escalating conflict with new management. The employer did not properly investigate the allegations or give either employee a genuine opportunity to respond before deciding to terminate them.

Julie Curtis had a regular 20-hour week with Affordable UK Caravans when the employer told her there was no work until mid-January and refused to pay her contracted hours. She treated the prolonged exclusion from paid work as a serious breach and resigned.

Next Generation Homes stopped providing Mr Maiorenko with work and ceased communicating with him after he queried pay and future work. The case concerned whether that conduct itself ended the employment relationship and what wage arrears remained outstanding.

Kitchen hand Jagjit Singh was dismissed immediately after the employer believed he had attended work intoxicated and later returned to the restaurant. There was no paper trail of prior warnings or a proper investigation before the phone-call and email dismissal.

Colin Bradshaw claimed he was dismissed after a confrontation during a removal job and a related pay dispute with Ocean To Alps. The ERA had to separate the alleged termination from the employer's subsequent handling of the incident, communications and unpaid hours.

RMD claimed she had been dismissed by LWQ and also relied on allegations said to amount to protected disclosures. The ERA examined the communications surrounding the end of employment and whether the alleged disclosures met the statutory requirements for protected-disclosure treatment.

Ms Udumullaga was presented with an employer-prepared resignation letter and was later told her job had already been disestablished. The dispute concerned redundancy, periods when she said she was fit and available to work, unpaid entitlements, and whether the employer's process was genuine and fair.

Mr Williams was told by email on 17 March 2024 that he had been made redundant immediately. He had not previously been told his job was in jeopardy, no supporting information accompanied the decision, and there had been no genuine consultation before the outcome was reached.