EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal
The Appellants appealed against the Tribunal’s decision that their dismissals were fair, in circumstances where they had presented multiple grievances alleging racially discriminatory treatment and were found by the grievance panel to have acted in bad faith. They complained that their inability to appeal against that finding under the Respondent’s grievance procedures, and the role the finding played in their subsequent dismissal vitiated the fairness of the entire disciplinary process. The grounds alleged (1) an error of law by the Tribunal in arriving at their conclusion that the dismissals were fair and (2) perversity.
This was a most unusual case, as the Tribunal’s findings of fact demonstrated. The dismissals were found to be not only on the basis of gross misconduct, but also for some other substantial and free-standing reason justifying dismissal, namely the irreparable breakdown of relationships in the department where the Appellants worked. The appeals were dismissed on the basis that no error of law had been identified in the Tribunal’s reasoning, having regard to the facts found; and that their decision could not be said to be perverse. Related grounds challenging the findings on wrongful dismissal and victimisation were also dismissed.
Cox J
[2010] UKEAT 0448 – 09 – 2705
Bailii
Employment Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – Clarke v Trimoco Motor Group Ltd and Another EAT 30-Oct-1992
The claimant had been dismissed for dishonesty.
Held: A grievance procedure is not equivalent to or a substitute for a disciplinary hearing, at which the employee is provided with an opportunity to explain. The two procedures are significantly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.416156