UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
Reasonableness of dismissal
Unfair dismissal – reason for dismissal – fairness – Employments Rights Act 1996 section 98 (1), (2) and (4).
The Claimant was a long-standing employee of the Respondent who became Director of the Dorset Waste Partnership (‘the DWP’). When problems arose, external bodies raised criticisms of the DWP’s financial management and ultimately disciplinary proceedings against the Claimant ensued, culminating in his dismissal for what was said to be a reason relating to his conduct. On his claim of unfair dismissal, the Claimant complained that he had been held accountable for events that were not the result of misconduct on his part; his dismissal could not be for a reason relating to his conduct. The Employment Tribunal dismissed his claim, explaining the reasons for its Judgment chronologically, starting with the investigation which it considered in the light of the guidance provided in British Homes Stores Ltd v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379. It went on to find that the Claimant had been dismissed for his failure to implement proper management systems and that this had led to pounds 1.5 million of inappropriate hiring costs. The ET was satisfied that this was the Respondent’s genuine belief and that it was based on reasonable grounds.
The Claimant appealed, arguing: (1) the ET had failed to determine the reason for his dismissal, alternatively (2) to the extent it had assumed the reason was conduct, that was impermissible given that this was really a case akin to ‘ministerial responsibility’ and, therefore, a ‘some other substantial reason’ (SOSR) or capability dismissal.
Held: dismissing the appeal.
Although the ET’s reasoning was unhelpfully expressed (adopting a chronological approach rather than addressing the statutory questions in order), reading the Judgment as a whole, it was apparent that it had found the dismissal had indeed been for a reason relating to the Claimant’s conduct. That, moreover, was a conclusion the ET was entitled to reach given that it had found that conduct in issue was the Claimant’s fundamental failure to initiate rigorous financial management systems within the DWP; the ET did not thereby err in allowing that misconduct might encompass serious neglect, omission or carelessness. In the circumstances, it had not been bound to find that this was a SOSR or capability dismissal.
Eady QC HHJ
[2018] UKEAT 0084 – 18 – 0308
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.631850