The claimant appealed against a decision that she had not been unfairly dismissed. She had been dismissed after complaints by a colleague, but had not been given the opportunity to examine him during the process.
Held: An employer was not duty bound to allow an employee subject to a disciplinary hearing to cross examine those who have made statements on which the employer wishes to rely: ‘in the workplace investigation of misconduct, cross-examination of complainants by the employee whose conduct is in question (or even confrontations between them) are very much the exception’ because ‘Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the cases decided under it and its predecessors do not, of course, require the dismissing employer to be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the employee whose conduct is in question has actually done what he or she is alleged to have done. . In a dismissal based on conduct, it is sufficient for the employer to have a genuine belief that the employee has behaved in the manner alleged, to have reasonable grounds for that belief, and to have conducted an investigation which is fair and proportionate to the employer’s capacity and resources. The employer has to act fairly, but fairness does not require a forensic or quasi-judicial investigation, for which the employer is unlikely in any event to be qualified, and for which he, she or it may lack the means.’
Citations:
EAT/780/01, [2002] UKEAT 780 – 01 – 2611, [2003] IRLR 273
Links:
Statutes:
Citing:
Cited – Ulsterbus v Henderson CANI 1989
O’Donnell LJ said: ‘It is quite clear in this case that a careful investigation was carried out by Mr Campbell, an appeal was heard by Mr Wilson, and a most meticulous review of all the evidence was carried out as evidenced by Mr Heubeck’s letter of . .
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 – Khanum v Mid Glamorgan Area Health Authority EAT 1979
In a domestic tribunal such as that a disciplinary hearing, all that is required is that the three basic requirements of natural justice be fulfilled; namely (1) that the person should know the nature of the accusation against him or her; (2) that . .
Cited – British Leyland v Swift CA 1981
The court upheld the dismissal by employers of a long-serving employee who had stolen and subsequently altered a road fund licence belonging to his employers and had persistently lied about the incident.
Held: When considering the decision of . .
Cited – Neale v Hereford and Worcester County Council CA 1986
May LJ said that the decision of an employer’s disciplinary hearing: ‘neither the EAT nor this Court could disturb their decision unless one could say in effect ‘My goodness, that is certainly wrong’.’ He discussed the test for an apellate court . .
Approved – Ulsterbus v Henderson CANI 1989
O’Donnell LJ said: ‘It is quite clear in this case that a careful investigation was carried out by Mr Campbell, an appeal was heard by Mr Wilson, and a most meticulous review of all the evidence was carried out as evidenced by Mr Heubeck’s letter of . .
Cited – ADT Auctions Ltd v Nayar EAT 7-Apr-1998
The EAT considered a complaint by the dismissed employee that he had not been given the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses who had provided statements against him. . .
Cited – Southdown Housing Association v Barnard EAT 27-Jun-1997
Judge Hull said: ‘although an employer when conducting a disciplinary enquiry is undoubtedly required to behave fairly, he is not required to conduct a forensic hearing, a court-style hearing, in which witnesses are produced for cross-examination. . .
Cited – Regina v Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, Ex parte St Germain (No 2) CA 1979
Proper Limits on Imprisonment
The court discussed the proper limits of imprisonment: ‘despite the deprivation of his general liberty, a prisoner remains invested with residuary rights appertaining to the nature and conduct of his incarceration . . An essential characteristic of . .
See Also – Santamera v Express Cargo Forwarding (T/A Iec Ltd) EAT 1-Nov-2001
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Kennedy v Ashfield In2Focus Ltd NIIT 19-Mar-2008
. .
Cited – Abbey National Plc v Morgan EAT 11-Nov-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203258
