Ms Woods was Chief Secretary and Accounts Clerk and the business’ new owners thought she was overpaid. She went to solicitors after they requested she accept less or work more. They suggested job title changes, and were planning to insist on them. Ms Woods’ solicitor advised her to resign and claim constructive dismissal. ‘All trust and confidence was lost on both sides.’
The Employment Tribunal held there was no constructive dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal would have reversed this, but felt they were bound by Pedersen v Camden LBC.[1]
Judgmentedit
Lord Denning MR that the tribunal could not be overturned on its finding of fact unless there was a misdirection in law or the decision was perverse. He recounted Horton v McMurty[2] where giving hints to the jury Pollock CB said ‘Gentlemen, I believe it is for you to decide whether this was a proper ground of dismissal - but if it be a matter of law… my opinion is that it is a good ground of dismissal.’
As an addendum, he added, ‘I hope that this may lead to the shortening of the hearings before the industrial tribunals and the length of their reasons. At any rate it should reduce the number of appeals to the appeal tribunal.’
Watkins LJ concurred, on even stronger grounds saying, ‘The obdurate refusal of the employee to accept conditions very properly and sensibly being sought to be imposed upon her was unreasonable.’
woods, services, peterborough, 1982, labour, case, concerning, unfair, dismissal, governed, employment, rights, 1996, courtcourt, appealcitation, 1982, 693keywordsunfair, dismissal, contents, facts, judgment, also, notes, referencesfacts, editms, woods, chief,. Woods v WM Car Services Peterborough Ltd 1982 ICR 693 is a UK labour law case concerning unfair dismissal now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996 Woods v WM Car Services Peterborough LtdCourtCourt of AppealCitation s 1982 ICR 693KeywordsUnfair dismissal Contents 1 Facts 2 Judgment 3 See also 4 Notes 5 ReferencesFacts editMs Woods was Chief Secretary and Accounts Clerk and the business new owners thought she was overpaid She went to solicitors after they requested she accept less or work more They suggested job title changes and were planning to insist on them Ms Woods solicitor advised her to resign and claim constructive dismissal All trust and confidence was lost on both sides The Employment Tribunal held there was no constructive dismissal The Employment Appeal Tribunal would have reversed this but felt they were bound by Pedersen v Camden LBC 1 Judgment editLord Denning MR that the tribunal could not be overturned on its finding of fact unless there was a misdirection in law or the decision was perverse He recounted Horton v McMurty 2 where giving hints to the jury Pollock CB said Gentlemen I believe it is for you to decide whether this was a proper ground of dismissal but if it be a matter of law my opinion is that it is a good ground of dismissal As an addendum he added I hope that this may lead to the shortening of the hearings before the industrial tribunals and the length of their reasons At any rate it should reduce the number of appeals to the appeal tribunal Watkins LJ concurred on even stronger grounds saying The obdurate refusal of the employee to accept conditions very properly and sensibly being sought to be imposed upon her was unreasonable See also editUK labour lawNotes edit 1981 ICR 674 1860 5 H amp N 667 678References edit nbsp nbsp This article relating to law in the United Kingdom or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Woods v WM Car Services Peterborough Ltd amp oldid 1149463392, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
