An enquiry into the death of Jasmine Beckford had led to the two social workers being peremptorily dismissed. The report had accused them on not intervening effectively. Each had been involved in her care, and each brought claims of unfair dismissal. They noew appealed against a decision that their cases should be heard together. They said that the answers of one given in cross examination might be prejudicial to the other.
Held: The appeal failed. The question was one for the discretion of the tribunal chairman by virtue of regulation 15. An exercise of that discretion could only be disturbed if it could be shown tp be unreasonable in that he or she had either taken some irrelevant consideration into account, or had failed to take a relevant consideration into account, or had oherwise acted perversley. A joint hearing need not lead to unfairness or prejudice, and justice would be seen to be done if the cases were held together, allowing the appropriate apportionment of blame
Sir John Donaldson MR said that it was clearly in the interests of everyone that the two cases should be heard together.
As to appeals, they are restricted to pints of law whether the point invoved is substantive or procedural.
Balcombe LJ, giving the leading judgment in this court adopted Hodgson J’s comment in the court below in relation to the local authority’s submission that no disciplinary meeting was necessary where the charge was one of gross misconduct.
Judges:
Sir John Donaldson MR, Balcombe LJ
Citations:
[1987] IRLR 146
Statutes:
Industrial Tribunal (Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1985 15 18.1
Citing:
Appeal from – Dietmann v London Borough of Brent; Wahlstron v Same EAT 2-Jan-1987
EAT Two social workers had been peremptorily dismissed after adverse findings against them in an enquiry into the death of Jasmine Beckford. They appealed saying that they should have been allowed a disciplinary . .
Cited by:
See Also – Dietmann v Brent London Borough Council CA 1988
A child, Jasmine Beckford, had died and the claimant social workers were criticised in a report. The claimants were summarily dismissed, and claimed unfair dismissal.
Held: Where a disciplinary procedure is set out in a contract, a failure to . .
See Also – Dietmann v London Borough of Brent; Wahlstron v Same EAT 2-Jan-1987
EAT Two social workers had been peremptorily dismissed after adverse findings against them in an enquiry into the death of Jasmine Beckford. They appealed saying that they should have been allowed a disciplinary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.536804