EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Other forms of victimisation
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
The Respondent dismissed the Claimant, who was subject to a final written warning, ostensibly on the ground that she had taken holiday without permission and in disobedience to instructions from the Respondent’s management. The Employment Tribunal found that conduct was not the Respondent’s true reason for dismissal; that the Respondent had victimised the Claimant because of protected acts; and that even if conduct were the true reason for dismissal the dismissal was unfair. Appeal allowed. (1) The Employment Tribunal had not given sufficient reasons for its decision on the question of victimisation and had not recognised the distinction between unlawful treatment distinction between unreasonable conduct and conduct which is because of a protected act: Law Society v Bahl [2004] IRLR 799. (2) The Employment Tribunal had not approached the question of unfair dismissal in accordance with section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
David Richardson J
[2015] UKEAT 0430 – 14 – 1507
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550308