Employment News — 14 April 2014: the final straw — employer entitled to take strict view in light of previous warnings
The claimant in Disotto Food Ltd v Carlos Santos was employed as a factory and warehouse manager at a foodstuffs company. Before his dismissal for misconduct, he had been given three warnings about his conduct:
- 16 July 2009: a warning lasting 12 months for, among other things, failing to follow instructions (allowing the factory team to be late on site)
- 9 July 2010: a warning lasting six months for failure to arrange for stocking of a product in sufficient time
- 3 November 2010: a 12-month warning (to remain on his file from 8 December) following an unresolved allegation that he had failed to comply with an instruction from the managing director (that an agency worker should not be allowed to return to work)
The final incident that led to dismissal was on 22 November 2010. The warnings given in relation to the second and third incidents were still live at that time…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Hogan Lovells briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Hogan Lovells
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Hogan Lovells
The decision of the US Court of Appeals has raised questions about how issuers should present their disclosures on conflict minerals under Exchange Act Rule 13p-1 and Form SD.
An interesting judgment was delivered by the Honourable J Majiki on 19 November 2013 in the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth.
Analysis from The Lawyer
As international firms question their future in these small, closely linked markets, local lawyers too are eyeing the business environment with caution
Beyond the headline infrastructure projects, UK construction work is still recovering from the clobbering it took during the slump