EAT Unfair Dismissal: Reasonableness of Dismissal – Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal
1. Conduct. The Claimant’s employment was governed by royal charter and statute as well as his contract of employment. The Respondent was entitled to dismiss only for good cause as defined in the statute which, so far as material, required it to prove ‘conduct of an immoral scandalous or disgraceful nature incompatible with the duties of the office or employment’. The Employment Tribunal equated these words with the concept of gross misconduct. In applying section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 it ought to have considered whether it was reasonable for the Respondent to find that the Claimant was guilty of ‘conduct of an immoral scandalous or disgraceful nature incompatible with the duties of the office or employment’. Its reasoning showed that it did not do so.
2. Investigation. At a late stage in the preparation of an investigation report opinions favourable to the Claimant were excised from the report. The Employment Tribunal found that the report represented genuine conclusions after receiving honest and unbiased advice. But it remained the case that significant opinions favourable to the Claimant were excised from the report; and the Employment Tribunal ought to have asked whether the conclusions of the investigation were fully expressed in the report; if not why not; and whether it was reasonable to dismiss having regard to what was omitted in the final version of the report.
Appeal allowed.
David Richardson HHJ
[2016] UKEAT 0200 – 15 – 2107
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567891
