Burchell case remains good law
The appellant head teacher had been dismissed for failing to disclose the fact that her partner had been convicted of a sex offence. She now appealed from rejection of her claim for unfair dismissal.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The tribunal was entitled to conclude that it was a reasonable response for the panel to have concluded that Ms Reilly’s non-disclosure not only amounted to a breach of duty but also merited her dismissal. For her refusal to accept that she had been in breach of duty suggested a continuing lack of insight which, as it was reasonable to conclude, rendered it inappropriate for her to continue to run the school. ‘the three requirements identified by Arnold J [in Burchell] do not well fit the inquiry mandated by what is now section 98(4). It is indeed clear that, on the contrary, they were directed to the first part of the inquiry under what is now section 98(1) to (3).’
Hale LJ discussed Burchell: ‘There may be very good reasons why no-one has challenged the Burchell test before us. First, it has been applied by Employment Tribunals, in the thousands of cases which come before them, for 40 years now. It remains binding upon them and on the Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal. Destabilising the position without a very good reason would be irresponsible. Second, Parliament has had the opportunity to clarify the approach which is intended, should it consider that Burchell is wrong, and it has not done so. Third, those who are experienced in the field, whether acting for employees or employers, may consider that the approach is correct and does not lead to injustice in practice.’
Lady Hale, President, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge
[2018] UKSC 16, UKSC 2016/0170
Bailii, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC Hearing am, SC Hearing pm
Employment Rights Act 1996 98(4), Education Act 2002 175(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
At EAT – A v B and Another EAT 20-Feb-2014
EAT Unfair Dismissal – The Employment Tribunal was not wrong in law, or perverse, or in breach of Article 8 to conclude that, in all the circumstances described by the ET, the Respondent decision taker was . .
Appeal from – A v B Local Authority and Another CA 19-Jul-2016
The appellant was a head teacher at a primary school, of which the second respondent was the governing body, until she was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct in May 2011. The reason for her dismissal was that she had failed to reveal to the . .
Cited – Orr v Milton Keynes Council CA 1-Feb-2011
The employee was involved in offensive and insubordinate behaviour with his team leader. He was dismissed by a more senior manager, after a hearing in which the first manager gave evidence but which the claimant did not attend. It was later shown . .
Cited – British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell EAT 1978
B had been dismissed for allegedly being involved with a number of other employees in acts of dishonesty relating to staff purchases. She had denied the abuse. The tribunal had found the dismissal unfair in the methods used to decide to dismiss her. . .
Cited – Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission PC 26-Jun-1995
(New Zealand) The New Zealand statute required a holder of specified investments to give notice of its holding to a regulator as soon as it became aware of its holding. Unbeknown to any others in the company apart from one colleague, its chief . .
Cited – Orr v Milton Keynes Council CA 1-Feb-2011
The employee was involved in offensive and insubordinate behaviour with his team leader. He was dismissed by a more senior manager, after a hearing in which the first manager gave evidence but which the claimant did not attend. It was later shown . .
Cited – Turner v East Midlands Trains Ltd CA 16-Nov-2012
The employee, a train ticket conductor, was accused without direct evidence of manipulating her machine to produce false tickets which she was then said to have sold.
Held: Elias LJ said that the Tribunal: ‘has to ask whether the employer . .
Cited – Redbridge London Borough Council v Fishman EAT 1978
Unfair and wrongful dismissal are separate and distinct causes of action. Phillips J said: ‘The jurisdiction based on paragraph 6 (8) of Schedule 1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 has not got much to do with contractual rights and . .
Cited – Redbridge London Borough Council v Fishman EAT 1978
Unfair and wrongful dismissal are separate and distinct causes of action. Phillips J said: ‘The jurisdiction based on paragraph 6 (8) of Schedule 1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 has not got much to do with contractual rights and . .
Cited – Weston Recovery Services v Fisher EAT 7-Oct-2010
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Wrongful dismissal
Employment Tribunal found Claimant guilty of serious misconduct for which dismissal fell within the range . .
Cited – Haddon v Van Den Bergh Foods Ltd EAT 10-Nov-1999
An employee did not return to work after a presentation to him of a good service award, because he had drunk alcohol. A new policy required staff not to return to work after consuming alcohol, but had also said that alcohol would not be provided. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Education
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.606038
