Mrs Morgan, was suspected by her employer of overstating her work to boost her piece-work earnings. She was asked to explain the discrepancies found. Her explanations were not accepted and she was dismissed. The Industrial Tribunal found the employer’s refusal to accept her explanation to be unreasonable. The evidence of another employee, saying she had been absent should not to have been preferred. The employer appealed successfully to the EAT: the Industrial Tribunal had impermissibly substituted their own evaluation of the other employee’s evidence for that of the employer. The employee appealed.
Held: The appeal failed. Balcombe LJ summarised the principles. The second of five principles recited the judgment in Iceland, approved by the Court of Appeal in Neale v Hereford and Worcester County Council. Applying that approach the Industrial Tribunal had substituted their own evaluation of the other employee’s evidence for that of the employer. That was an error of law. The Employment Appeal Tribunal were correct in so finding. However having identified an error of law the Employment Appeal Tribunal should have remitted the case for reconsideration, and not substituted its own finding.
Balcombe LJ
[1991] ICR 369, [1991] IRLR 89
England and Wales
Cited by:
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.
Employment
Leading Case
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.321867