Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
Encyclopedia
Western Excavating Ltd v Sharp [1978] ICR 221 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal
, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996
.
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.
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,
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.
Unfair dismissal
Unfair dismissal is the term used in UK labour law to describe an employer's action when terminating an employee's employment contrary to the requirements of the Employment Rights Act 1996...
, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996
Employment Rights Act 1996
The Employment Rights Act 1996 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament passed by the Conservative government to codify the existing law on individual rights in UK labour law. Previous statutes, dating from the Contracts of Employment Act 1963, included the Redundancy Payments Act 1965, the...
.
Facts
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.
Judgment
The Court of Appeal reversed the Tribunal and held that Mr Sharp had not been constructive 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 1996Employment Rights Act 1996
The Employment Rights Act 1996 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament passed by the Conservative government to codify the existing law on individual rights in UK labour law. Previous statutes, dating from the Contracts of Employment Act 1963, included the Redundancy Payments Act 1965, the...
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,
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.
See also
- UK labour law
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd [1986] ICR 157, 167, ‘repudiatory conduct may consist of a series of acts or incidents, some of them perhaps quite trivial, which cumulatively amount to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of the contract of employment that the employer will not, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct himself in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between the employer and employee.’
- Post Office v Roberts [1980] IRLR 347 is similar in that harsh exercise of management discretion breaches good faith, and so it does justify leaving.