EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – REASONABLENESS OF DISMISSAL
The Respondent made an error in the application of the third stage of its absence policy and procedure: but for the mistake it would not have moved the Claimant on to the fourth stage of the procedure, where he was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the dismissal was for some other substantial reason; that the mistake by the Respondent’s manager was a reasonable one; and that the dismissal was fair. The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal was correct to hold that the dismissal was for some other substantial reason: Wilson v Post Office [2000] IRLR 834 applied. However, the Tribunal ought to have had regard to the responsibility of the Respondent’s personnel department for providing support to the manager to ensure the fair and consistent application of the policy, this being a relevant resource for the purposes of section 98(4). Moreover the Tribunal was entitled to take into account that the issuing by the Respondent of a warning at the third stage was manifestly inappropriate having regard to its own procedures: Stein v Associated Dairies Ltd [1982] IRLR 447 and Tower Hamlets HA v Anthony [1989] IRLR 394 and Co-operative Retail Services v Lucas [1993] UKEAT/145/93 discussed. Appeal allowed. Decision substituted that the dismissal was unfair.
Judges:
Richardson J
Citations:
[2011] UKEAT 0442 – 10 – 0803
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.430456