The EAT considered a case of the dismissal for admitted, serious dishonesty concerning expenses by one of the directors of the Society, who held a position of considerable responsibility. The Industrial Tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because the employers had not carried out as much investigations as they thought appropriate into the employee’s claim that he had failed to claim for expenses to which he was entitled in an amount which, he said, exceeded that which was the basis of the employers’ case. The Society had thought their alleged ‘counterclaim’ was an irrelevance when considering the dishonesty admitted by this employee, a person in a position of seniority, trust and responsibility.
Held: The employer’s appeal succeeded. the Tribunal had reached a conclusion in the case at which no reasonable and properly directed Tribunal could have arrived at. A Tribunal ‘should not scrutinise the decision of a court line by line’ .
‘We have to remind ourselves also of the important principle that decisions are not to be scrutinised closely word by word, line by line, and that for clarity’s and brevity’s sake industrial tribunals are not to be expected to set out every factor and every piece of evidence that has weighed with them before reaching their decision; and it is for us to recall that what is out of sight in the language of a decision is not to be presumed necessarily to have been out of mind. It is our duty to assume in an industrial tribunal’s favour that all the relevant evidence and all the relevant factors were in their minds, whether express reference to that appears in their final decision or not; and that has been well-established by the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Retarded Children’s Aid Society Ltd. v. Day [1978] I.C.R. 437 and in the recent decision in Varndell v. Kearney and Trecker Marwin Ltd [1983] I.C.R. 683.’
Judges:
Waite J
Citations:
[1984] IRLR 425, [1984] ICR 604
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – John Lewis Plc v T L Coyne EAT 7-Dec-2000
An employee had been dismissed for making private telephone calls at work, against company policy. The dismissal had been based upon the general assessment that making such calls was dishonest.
Held: The employer’s appeal failed. The procedure . .
Cited – DPP Law Ltd v Greenberg CA 7-May-2021
Respect for ET judgment where prriciples set out
The respondent solicitor, had unlawfully accepted a payment of cash from the father of a criminal Legal Aid client. The firm now appealed from a finding that he had been unlawfully dismissed for gross misconduct.
Held: The appeal succeeded: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.375152