EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
The Employment Tribunal erred when it found the employee was not unfairly dismissed. There was no disciplinary hearing. In the light of London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small [2009] EWCA Civ 220 the Employment Tribunal concentrated wrongly on the conduct of the Claimant and not upon the conduct of the Respondent. In the light of Strouthos v London Underground Limited [2004] IRLR 402 CA a charge of deliberate falsification or lying has to be put squarely. Remitted for rehearing.
Judges:
McMullen QC J
Citations:
[2009] UKEAT 0384 – 08 – 1504
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Strouthos v London Underground Ltd CA 18-Mar-2004
The claimant had been dismissed after being accused of taking a staff car to France and having it impounded for suspected importation of cigarettes and alcohol above personal use limits.
Held: ‘It is a basic proposition, whether in criminal or . .
Cited – London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small CA 17-Mar-2009
The trust appealed against a decision that it had unfairly dismissed an ambulance paramedic after a complaint of his behaviour on a call out, saying that the ET had substituted its own assessment for that of the disciplinary panel of the Trust.
Cited – Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust CA 7-Mar-2007
The employer had applied to strike out their employee’s claim for unfair dismissal, and also sought a deposit from the claimant. The claim had been re-instated by the EAT.
Held: A claim should not be struck out where, as here, there were facts . .
Cited – British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell EAT 1978
B had been dismissed for allegedly being involved with a number of other employees in acts of dishonesty relating to staff purchases. She had denied the abuse. The tribunal had found the dismissal unfair in the methods used to decide to dismiss her. . .
Cited – Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones EAT 29-Jul-1982
Members of the tribunal must not simply consider whether they personally think that the dismissal is fair and they must not substitute their decision as to what was the right course to adopt for that of the employer. Their proper function is to . .
Cited – Bugden and Co v Thomas 1976
The failure to have a hearing with the person responsible for the dismissal was held to be unfair. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347180