EAT Unfair Dismissal: Reason for Dismissal including Substantial Other Reason:
Practice and Procedure: Appellate Jurisdiction / Reasons / Burns-Barke
ET did not state what acts or omissions constituted the misconduct in which they held the employer to have had a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation. In the absence of this, the EAT could not know what the ET were evaluating, and the matter had to be remitted. An ET should always indicate the substance of that which the employer believed.
Following the application of the overriding objective into the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2001: there was no indefeasible right of a party to require the Tribunal to examine evidence which is of relevance, but may in the proper exercise of its discretion, exclude evidence which, although strictly relevant, is of peripheral relevance or is, for instance, repetitive.
Judges:
Langstaff J
Citations:
[2006] UKEAT 0568 – 05 – 2701, UKEAT/0568/05, [2006] All ER (D) 166
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Snowball v Gardner Merchant EAT 1987
The employee claimed that she had been sexually harassed by her manager. In the course of her evidence the employers sought to cross-examine her as to her general attitude towards sexual matters, based on events which had occurred during the course . .
Cited – Rosedale Ltd v Sibley EAT 1980
The tribunal had ruled that a document sent by a Union District Secretary to head office claiming dispute benefit for the Claimant and other employees of the Appellant employer; although admissible in evidence at common law, would not be received . .
Cited by:
Cited – Digby v East Cambridgeshire District Council EAT 30-Nov-2006
EAT Unfair dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal
Practice and Procedure – Admissibility of evidence
Total exclusion of evidence relating to final written warning inextricably linked with sanction of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240213
