UNFAIR DISMISSAL; remedy; compensation; perversity.
The Employment Tribunal found that the appellant had been unfairly dismissed. It awarded compensation on the basis that, had the respondent correctly addressed its true reason for dismissing him, the appellant would have been fairly dismissed within six months because he had become unmanageable, and this had led to a breakdown of the respondent’s trust and confidence in him. The appellant submitted that the Tribunal’s conclusion that he would have been dismissed in any event within six months was perverse, and was based upon an unwarranted assumption that he would not have heeded warnings to change his behaviour. He also submitted that the Tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons for its conclusions.
Held: The Tribunal’s conclusion that the Claimant would not have heeded warnings to change his behaviour was an inference legitimately drawn from the primary facts found by it and from its assessment of the Claimant when he gave his evidence. It was not perverse. The Tribunal also gave logical and comprehensible reasons for its conclusions which were Meek compliant.
Observed: The Tribunal had correctly recognised that the question for it in applying section 123 of the Employment Rights Act, 1996 was not whether if the respondent had conducted a further disciplinary hearing on different grounds, that hearing would have been fair, but whether if there had been a fair disciplinary hearing on such grounds, the result would have been a fair dismissal.
Citations:
[2021] UKEAT 0009 – 19 – 0904
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.661951
