Griffiths & ors v Perco Engineering Services - Automatically unfair dismissal (burden of proof) [2006] eat

Five Appellants appealed against the Tribunal’s decision that none of them had been automatically unfairly dismissed for health and safety reasons and three of them had not been dismissed at all but had resigned on protest at the dismissal of the other two. The EAT accepted that where a Claimant relies on an automatically unfair reason for dismissal it is for him to establish that the reason on which he relies was the reason, or if there is more than one reason, the principal reason for the dismissal (this is contrary to the generally understood position - see the Povey case).

The full content of this page is available to subscribers only. Please purchase a subscription if you feel this content will be of use to you.

Case Summary Tag: 

Login or subscribe (includes subscription information) to access the full content of this page.