EAT Unfair Dismissal : Reinstatement or Re-Engagement – Claimant a cabin crew member held to have been unfairly dismissed but to have contributed to a high degree to his dismissal (80%) and Tribunal held that a fair dismissal might well have occurred in any event so that a Polkey reduction of 50% was made.
At a remedy hearing, the Claimant sought reinstatement or re-engagement which was contested on the basis that it was not practicable given the Respondent’s belief in the Claimant’s misconduct and not just. The Tribunal decided both were practicable, but reinstatement would not be just in light of the high level of contribution. It held that re-engagement would be just because the contributory conduct could be reflected by making no arrears of pay award, thus obviating injustice to the Respondent.
Held: allowing the appeal. To make an order described as a re-engagement order but reinstating the Claimant to his former role on the same terms as previously held was wrong in principle where the Tribunal had decided that reinstatement would not be just. Further, had the Tribunal considered whether re-engagement was just as required by the statute, it would inevitably have reached the same conclusion.
Simler J DBE
[2014] UKEAT 0056 – 14 – 2606, [2014] IRLR 683, [2014] ICR D29
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – McBride v Scottish Police Authority (Scotland) SC 15-Jun-2016
The court was asked whether the employment tribunal had been correct, after finding that the appellant had been unfairly dismissed, to order her reinstatement. She had worked as a fingerprint officer, but her reinstatement was to be on terms that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.527198
