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 she should not attend court in her role. The court was now asked whether an order could be made on a different contractual basis.
Held: The appeal was allowed. There was a dichotomy when considering between an order for reengagement and an order for reinstatement. The ET has no power to order reinstatement in terms which alter the contractual terms of the complainant’s employment. In part, the question was a practical one. M had for several years in fact not been asked to attend court to give evidence, and that was the status quo. The order was in effect a recognition of a practical limitation which was already in place.
Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge
[2016] ICR 788, [2016] IRLR 63, [2016] UKSC 27, [2016] WLR(D) 308, 2016 GWD 19-339, UKSC 2014/0235
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Employment Rights Act 1996 112 116
Scotland
Citing:
At Inner House – McBride v Employment Appeal Tribunal SCS 25-Jan-2013
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 . .
Cited – British Airways Plc v Valencia EAT 26-Jun-2014
EAT Unfair Dismissal : Reinstatement or Re-Engagement – Claimant a cabin crew member held to have been unfairly dismissed but to have contributed to a high degree to his dismissal (80%) and Tribunal held that a . .
Cited – Timex Corporation v Thomson EAT 1981
The tribunal had found the employee claimant to have been unfairly dismissed when the employer dismissed for redundancy or reorganisation. Although there was a redundancy situation they were not satisfied that the employee was dismissed for that . .
Cited – Port of London Authority v Payne and Others CA 3-Nov-1993
The practicality of re-instatement of an employee is to be decided on the evidence immediately before the tribunal. . .
Cited – Coleman v S and W Baldwin 1977
Whether unilateral changes to an employment contract amounted to a constructive dismissal. . .
Cited – Pedersen v Camden London Borough Council CA 1981
The test for determining whether there has been a repudiatory breach of contract sufficient to entitle the employee to leave and claim constructive dismissal is an objective one to be determined by the Tribunal itself. The Employment Appeal Tribunal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565401
