EAT Unfair Dismissal: Reasonableness of Dismissal – Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal
The Respondent’s decision to dismiss the Claimant took into account a final written warning to which she was subject. At the appeal against her dismissal the Claimant complained about the final written warning. The Employment Judge found that the Respondent’s appeal officer had investigated and considered the final written warning. The Claimant argued that this finding was perverse; the Respondent argued that the finding was not perverse, and in any event that the issue of internal appeal had not been raised by the Claimant in her ET1 claim form, so that it was not permissible for the Employment Judge to consider it.
Held. (1) The Employment Judge had been correct in law to consider the issue: it is part of an Employment Judge’s task under section 98(4) to consider the substance of what happened throughout the dismissal process including the internal appeal, and to consider whether the process overall was fair by the standards of section 98(4): West Midlands Co-operative Society Ltd v Tipton [1986] ICR 192 HL and Taylor v OCS Group Ltd [2006] ICR 1602 CA applied. This is so well established, and such a core feature of unfair dismissal law, that an Employment Judge will be expected to adopt this approach as a matter of course: Langston v Cranfield University [1998] IRLR 172 EAT applied. (2) The Employment Judge’s finding was not perverse: it was a permissible inference from the primary facts. Appeal dismissed.
David Richardson HHJ
[2016] UKEAT 0129 – 16 – 0809
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570391