The appellant had been employed by the Police as a fingerprint officer. She was unfairly dismissed after a wrongful accusation. The tribunal ordered that she be reinstated, but on terms which would not result in her attending court as an expert witness. The EAT had concluded that the Tribunal’s decision to order reinstatement was perverse, and remitted it. She now appealed
Held: The House rejected the EAT’s view that the ET had been perverse. The EAT had substituted its own factual interpretation for that of the ET and stated that the reasons which the EAT gave for implying that the ET might be partial did not withstand scrutiny. However, the ET had erred in law; it interpreted the ET’s judgment as an order to employ M on altered contractual terms. As reinstatement had to be unconditional, the ET had misapplied the law. The appeal was therefore refused so far as it sought to restore the ET’s order of reinstatement, but allowed the appeal to the extent of remitting the case to the original ET.
Judges:
Lady Dorran
Citations:
[2013] ScotCS CSIH – 4, [2013] IRLR 297, 2013 SC 268, [2013] CSIH 4, [2013] IRLR 297, 2013] CSIH 4
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Rights Act 1996 114 115 116
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Cited by:
At Inner House – McBride v Scottish Police Authority (Scotland) SC 15-Jun-2016
The court was asked whether the employment tribunal had been correct, after finding that the appellant had been unfairly dismissed, to order her reinstatement. She had worked as a fingerprint officer, but her reinstatement was to be on terms that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470718
