Ian Smith gets the flags out for the Supreme Court in Tesco Stores, & addresses the age-old issue of unfair dismissal
- Case one: fire and rehire, plus the meaning of a ‘permanent’ change.
- Case two: unfair dismissal, with an overlap between incapability and misconduct.
- Case three: restrictions on expression of religion or belief.
- Case four: the question of whether a belief is worthy of respect, plus Grainger (v).
Supreme Court decisions are not common in employment law, and so the big news this month has been the decision in the Tesco Stores case, holding that when an employer negotiated a valuable benefit for employees on the basis that it would be ‘permanent’, it actually meant it. In so holding, the judgment serves a useful function in approving the ‘PHI [permanent health insurance] cases’ (as we know and love them, holding that if extensive sickness cover is promised, the employer cannot later try to wriggle out of it) and confirming that the basic principle behind them can
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b21f1aaf_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=754d0e82_1)
