An employee did not return to work after a presentation to him of a good service award, because he had drunk alcohol. A new policy required staff not to return to work after consuming alcohol, but had also said that alcohol would not be provided.
Held: The tribunal had failed to look properly at how the test of the reasonableness of the employer’s decision was to be assessed. The test went beyond the tribunal asking themselves what they would have done, and must recognise that their standards are not at issue. The tribunal should take care before applying accepted mantra’s.
Morison P J
Gazette 10-Nov-1999, EAT/1160/98,  UKEAT 1160 – 98 – 2909,  ICR 1150,  IRLR 672
England and Wales
See Also – Haddon v Van Den Bergh Foods Ltd EAT 9-Feb-1999
Cited – Bessenden Properties Limited v Corness CA 1974
The court considered selection procedures in redundancy situations. Stamp LJ said: ‘It may be hard on employers in the embarrassing situation in which Mr Benfield [the employer] found himself in this case to have the matter so largely removed out of . .
Cited – Grundy v Willis 1976
Phillips J said: ‘So the duty of a tribunal is to take into account the reason . . and all the other facts and circumstances known to the employer, and ask whether for that reason, and in those circumstances, having regard to equity and the . .
Cited – George Whiley Ltd v Anderson 1-Jul-1976
Cited – Wells v Derwent Plastics Limited EAT 1978
Bristow J said: ‘Where the legal right or obligation with which you are concerned is not a common law right or obligation but is created by statute, what the statute says, and nothing else, is the law. The judges cannot add to or subtract from the . .
Cited – Foley v Post Office; HSBC Bank Plc (Formerly Midland Bank Plc) v Madden CA 31-Jul-2000
When an Employment Tribunal looked at whether a dismissal was reasonable, the test related not to an assessment of what tribunal members would think or do, but rather whether to ask whether the employer’s response was within a ‘band or range of . .
Cited – J Sainsbury Ltd v Hitt; Orse Sainsburys Supermarkets Limited v Hitt CA 18-Oct-2002
Reasobaleness of Investigation Judged Objectively
The employer appealed against a decision that it had unfairly dismissed the respondent. The majority of the Employment Tribunal had decided that the employers had not carried out a reasonable investigation into the employee’s alleged misconduct . .
Cited – Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp v Buckland EAT 8-May-2009
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal
Whether fundamental breach of implied term of trust and confidence cured, so that the Claimant’s resignation did not amount to constructive dismissal.
Cited – Reilly v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council SC 14-Mar-2018
Burchell case remains good law
The appellant head teacher had been dismissed for failing to disclose the fact that her partner had been convicted of a sex offence. She now appealed from rejection of her claim for unfair dismissal.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81127