The appellant employee had been involved in a fight with a fellow-employee and had been dismissed. The other employee received a lesser penalty because the employer believed that Mr. Slack had been the aggressor. The industrial tribunal held that Mr. Slack’s dismissal had been unfair because of certain procedural deficiencies (primarily a failure to disclose to him the contents of the statement of an independent witness on which the employers had primarily relied in holding that he was the more at fault). However, it decided that his compensation should be reduced by 50% on the basis that he had been guilty of serious misconduct in participating in the fight (irrespective of whether he was the aggressor, as to which it made no finding). Mr. Slack contended that that finding was unjust having regard to the lesser penalty meted out to the other employee.
Held: In considering any reduction in compensation for the claimant’s contribution to his dismissal, the focus will be on the nature and quality of the claimant’s conduct that is under consideration. Broad considerations of justice were not relevant for the purpose of the exercise under the sections.
Balcombe LJ said: ‘subsection (6) is looking only to the causative or contributory conduct of the complainant as a ground for the reduction of the compensatory award to which the complainant would otherwise be entitled under subsection (1). The words ‘just and equitable’ in subsection (6) . . do not, in my judgment, entitle the tribunal to take into account matters other than the causative or contributory conduct as a ground for deciding the proportion by which the compensatory award is to be reduced.’
Judges:
Balcombe LJ, Woolf LJ
Citations:
[1992] ICR 302, [1992] IRLR 11
Statutes:
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 73(7B) 74(6)
Citing:
Approved – RSPCA v Cruden EAT 1986
The dismissal of an employee of the RSPCA was unfair simply because of a delay with no good reason of some 7 months in initiating proceedings. This was even though the employee had suffered no prejudice as a result of the delay.
If a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.374368
