0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

say what you mean

24 September 2010

What’s the difference between the allegations ‘loss of £3,000′ and ‘theft of £3,000’? A finding of unfair dismissal says the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Celebi v Compass.

Mrs Celebi’s employers invited her to a disciplinary hearing regarding the allegation ‘loss of £3,000’. The evidence put to the tribunal was that they actually believed she had stolen the money. The fact that Mrs Celebi appeared to accept at the time that she knew she was being accused of theft could not be relied upon by her employers and it was at that point that the allegations should have been clarified. The EAT held that ‘it is a logical conclusion of a failure to put the allegation of theft to the claimant that the dismissal is unfair.’
The lesson to be learnt from this case is to say what you mean and not to try and save an employee’s feelings by attempting to soften an allegation.

related opinions

Anti-social media - but when is it work related?

As the use of social media continues to increase, its overlap with working life is becoming more and more prevalent.

View blog

IR35 changes - six months and counting...

In his 2018 Autumn Budget, the then Chancellor, Phillip Hammond, announced a significant change to the way liability for IR35 breaches will be dealt with for private sector companies from April 2020.

View blog

Court of Appeal confirms all employment tribunal judgments must be published on the register, except in national security cases

Under the ET Rules, all judgments and accompanying written reasons must be published on a pubic register which the general public can access online.

View blog

Supreme Court backs employers seeking to enforce restrictive covenants: Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd

The Supreme Court in Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd has determined that where post-termination restrictive covenants (i.e. “non-compete” clauses) in employment contracts go further than reasonably necessary to protect an employer’s business interests, it can apply the ‘blue pencil test,’ severing the offending words and leaving the remaining enforceable clause in place.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up