EAT Two social workers had been peremptorily dismissed after adverse findings against them in an enquiry into the death of Jasmine Beckford. They appealed saying that they should have been allowed a disciplinary hearing. They objected also to the hearing of both cases together.
Held: In answer to the suggestion that in a case of serious misconduct no disciplinary hearing may be necessary, Hodgson J said: ‘Such a construction would mean that the more serious the offence . . the less procedural protection the employee charged with misconduct would have’.
Mr Justice Hodgson also discussed a conflict of view which between various eminent judges as to whether it is right to say that a wrongful dismissal must be accepted to become effective. He concluded that the ‘acceptance view’ is the correct view and that in a proper case, the court can, where there has been a wrongful dismissal, prevent, by injunction, the implementation of that dismissal until, for instance, the proper procedures laid down in the contract have been followed.
Arepudiation by one party to an employment contract must be accepted by the innocent party to be deemed effective.
Judges:
Hodgson J
Citations:
[1987] IRLR 259, [1987] ICR 387
Statutes:
Industrial Tribunal (Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1985 15 18.1
Citing:
See Also – Dietmann v Brent London Borough Council CA 1987
An enquiry into the death of Jasmine Beckford had led to the two social workers being peremptorily dismissed. The report had accused them on not intervening effectively. Each had been involved in her care, and each brought claims of unfair . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Dietmann v Brent London Borough Council CA 1987
An enquiry into the death of Jasmine Beckford had led to the two social workers being peremptorily dismissed. The report had accused them on not intervening effectively. Each had been involved in her care, and each brought claims of unfair . .
Appeal from – Dietmann v Brent London Borough Council CA 1988
A child, Jasmine Beckford, had died and the claimant social workers were criticised in a report. The claimants were summarily dismissed, and claimed unfair dismissal.
Held: Where a disciplinary procedure is set out in a contract, a failure to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.536803
