The reason adduced by the union for the dismissal of the climant was found by the Tribunal on the facts not to be the true reason for dismissal, the true reason being the union executive committee’s political antipathy to Mr Brady.
Held: It was highly arguable that a finding that disciplinary proceedings had been commenced in bad faith was incapable of being remedied on appeal and a failure to carry out a preliminary investigation could not be remedied on appeal. The question is whether the employer has proved that a particular allegation is the real reason for dismissal. Elias P said: ‘It does not follow . . that whenever there is misconduct which could justify a dismissal a Tribunal is bound to find that this is indeed the operative reason’ and
‘The EAT must respect the factual findings of the employment tribunal and should not strain to identify an error merely because it is unhappy with any factual conclusions; it should not ‘use a fine tooth comb’ to subject the reasons of the employment tribunal to unrealistically detailed scrutiny so as to find artificial defects; it is not necessary for the tribunal to make findings on all matters of dispute before them nor to recount all the evidence, so that it cannot be assumed that the EAT sees all the evidence; and infelicities or even legal inaccuracies in particular sentences in the decision will not render the decision itself defective if the tribunal has essentially properly directed itself on the relevant law.’
Judges:
Elias P
Citations:
[2006] UKEAT 0057 – 06 – 3103, UKEAT/0057/06 and UKEAT/0130/06, [2006] IRLR 576
Links:
Statutes:
Citing:
Cited – Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson CA 1974
Lord Cairns said: ‘A reason for the dismissal of an employee is a set of facts known to the employer, or it may be of beliefs held by him, which cause him to dismiss the employee. If at the time of his dismissal the employer gives a reason for it, . .
Cited – W Devis and Sons Ltd v Atkins HL 6-Jul-1977
The ‘just and equitable’ test warranted the reduction or extinction of compensation for an employee who has been unfairly dismissed and then found to have been liable to summary dismissal. ‘The paragraph does not, nor did s. 116 of the Act of 1971, . .
Cited – British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell EAT 1978
B had been dismissed for allegedly being involved with a number of other employees in acts of dishonesty relating to staff purchases. She had denied the abuse. The tribunal had found the dismissal unfair in the methods used to decide to dismiss her. . .
Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Cited – Timex Corporation v Thomson EAT 1981
The tribunal had found the employee claimant to have been unfairly dismissed when the employer dismissed for redundancy or reorganisation. Although there was a redundancy situation they were not satisfied that the employee was dismissed for that . .
Cited – Maund v Penwith District Council CA 1984
The employee alleged that he had been dismissed for trade Union activities. The Industrial Tribunal held that he had the burden of proving that. The EAT disagreed.
Held: The appeal against the decision of the EAT failed.
Griffiths LJ . .
Cited – Jacques v Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers 1986
The rules of a Trades Union are not to be construed as if they were a statute but are ‘to be given a reasonable interpretation which accords with their intended meaning; bearing in mind their authorship, their purpose and the readership to which . .
Cited – Hamlet v General Municipal Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union 1987
Union rules should not be interpreted literally or like statutory provisions but in a looser and more benign way . .
Cited – Rowe v Radio Rentals Ltd 1982
It was not in general necessary that the manager hearing an appeal in a disciplinary matter should insulate himself from the manager who has recommended or implemented a dismissal, and treat himself as a judge hearing two contending parties. The . .
Cited – Paul v East Surrey District Health Authority CA 1995
Only in exceptional cases will different treatment of employees of itself amount to an unfairness. . .
Cited – Slater v Leicestershire Health Authority CA 1989
The appellant had been employed as a Staff Nurse. He was dismissed after being found to have slapped an elderly patient twice across the buttocks. That incident had been report to the Director of Nursing Services by another Nurse. He was suspended . .
Cited – Sartor v P and O European Ferries (Felixstowe) Ltd CA 1992
When considering whether an employer had acted reasonably in a disciplinary hearing, all that section 57 required was (Purchas LJ) ‘that the employer should have a reason falling within the provisions and that, in reaching that reason, he acted . .
Cited by:
Cited – Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust EAT 25-Jul-2006
EAT Employment Tribunal struck out unfair dismissal claims stating they were bound to fail. The employers had made two applications, one for a deposit to be ordered pursuant to rule 20 of the Employment Tribunal . .
Cited – McCall v Northern Rail Ltd EAT 25-Jan-2007
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal
Practice and Procedure – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
The Respondent dismissed the Claimant for three reasons. On appeal, two of the most . .
Cited – Dr Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd EAT 2-Mar-2007
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Automatically unfair reasons
Public Interest Disclosure
Section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 inadmissible reason for dismissal – burden of proof – whether Protected . .
See Also – Brady v Norman QBD 20-Oct-2008
. .
Cited – Corus UK Ltd v Mainwaring EAT 22-Jun-2007
EAT Unfair Dismissal:
Reasonableness of dismissal / Contributory fault / Constructive dismissal
The Claimant was dismissed for misconduct, namely pretending that he was unfit to return to work when . .
Cited – Fleming v PFG Plant Hire Ltd NIIT 9-Apr-2009
. .
Cited – Readman v Devon Primary Care Trust EAT 1-Dec-2011
EAT Redundancy : Suitable Alternative Employment – Did the Employment Tribunal err in law in concluding that the Appellant had unreasonably refused an offer of alternative employment for her own reasons, when it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240243
