EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Perversity
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Implied term/variation/construction of term
Head Gamekeeper dismissed in circumstances where Tribunal found that true reason for dismissal was that employers wanted to get rid of him because he had claimed a bonus and raised a grievance about it. The Tribunal found that the claimant had contributed to his dismissal on account of misconduct in remaining in a cottage on the estate, drinking with friends and subordinates, after the ‘guns’ had departed, consuming his employers’ alcohol in so doing. The basic and compensatory awards were, accordingly, to be reduced by 20%. Issues raised on appeal were (1) whether the employee was contractually entitled to a bonus; and (2) whether the Tribunal had erred in providing for only a 20% reduction. The EAT held that the Tribunal had erred in both respects. They were not entitled, on the findings in fact, to conclude that there was a contractual right to bonus. As regards the 20% reduction, the Tribunal had erred in concluding that the employee would not have been dismissed in respect of the misconduct alone; there was no basis in their findings on which they could properly so conclude. The EAT accordingly set aside the 20% finding. Further, there being sufficient findings for the EAT properly to reach a view on the matter, it ordered that there should be a 50% reduction.
Judges:
The Honourable Lady Smith
Citations:
[2008] UKEAT 0032 – 08 – 2910
Links:
Citing:
See Also – Blackford Farms Ltd v Mulqueeney EAT 4-Apr-2007
EAT National Minimum Wage – Contract of Employment – Damages for breach of contract
Following a Pre Hearing Review, an Employment Tribunal held that the Claimant’s claim was not time-barred. It had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.317875
