| 词条 | British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift |
| 释义 |
| name = British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift | court = House of Lords | image = | caption = | date decided = | full name = | citations = [1981] IRLR 91 | judges = | prior actions = | subsequent actions = | opinions = | transcripts = | keywords = Unfair dismissal }} British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift [1981] IRLR 91 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996. FactsMr Swift was dismissed when one of the company's car's tax discs was found in his vehicle. Mr Swift was convicted of a crime, and the employer dismissed him. Mr Swift claimed the dismissal was unfair. The Tribunal found that Mr Swift was guilty of gross misconduct but the dismissal was unfair because it was too severe a penalty for years of good service. JudgmentLord Denning MR held that the decision was perverse and would be reversed. He noted the tribunal said: {{Cquote|… a reasonable employer would, in our opinion, have considered that a lesser penalty was appropriate’. I do not think that that is the right test. The correct test is: Was it reasonable for the employers to dismiss him? If no reasonable employer would have dismissed him, then the dismissal was unfair. But if a reasonable employer might reasonably have dismissed him, then the dismissal was fair. It must be remembered that in all these cases there is a band of reasonableness, within which one employer might reasonably take one view: another quite reasonably take a different view.}}However, Lord Denning MR said the Tribunal did not take account of the fact that Swift did not come clean when he was found out, and he lied about what he had done.{{Citation needed|date=November 2015}} A reasonable employer could have dismissed him. See also
Notes 5 : United Kingdom labour case law|House of Lords cases|1981 in case law|1981 in British law|British Leyland |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。