EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
The Employment Tribunal did not err in finding the Respondent unfairly dismissed the Claimant for misconduct in failing to observe trackside safety rules. The EAT would not interfere with its findings: Fuller v London Borough of Brent [2011] IRLR 414, Bowater v Northwest London Hospitals NHS Trust [2001] IRLR 331, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Rolden [2010] IRLR 721, per Elias LJ, Gayle v Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 924, per Mummery LJ, London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small [2009] IRLR 563, per Mummery LJ, Orr v Milton Keynes Council [2011] EWCA Civ 62, Oso v Newham University NHS Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 1425 and Henderson v LB Hackney [2011] EWCA Civ 1518. The principles have most recently and authoritatively been rationalised in Arriva Trains v Conant UKEAT2011 0043/11 at paras 23-34, in Crawford v Suffolk Mental Health Trust by Elias LJ [2012] EWCA 138 and Graham v DWP [2012] EWCA Civ 903 applied.
The Employment Tribunal did not cite the statute or any authority, so creating a risk of error, but it plainly upheld the employer on BHS v Burchell, yet finding permissibly that the decision to dismiss was outside the range of reasonable responses.
It gave no reasons for finding 50% contribution: Greenwood v NWF Retail Ltd UKEAT/0409/09. This is remitted to the same Employment Tribunal to take the decision again and give reasons.
Judges:
McMullen QC J
Citations:
[2012] UKEAT 0531 – 11 – 1107
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465534