The claimant had been dismissed after being accused of taking a staff car to France and having it impounded for suspected importation of cigarettes and alcohol above personal use limits.
Held: ‘It is a basic proposition, whether in criminal or disciplinary proceedings, that the charge against the defendant or the employee facing dismissal should be precisely framed, and that evidence should be confined to the particulars given in the charge.’ Length of service is a relevant consideration for a tribunal to take into account when considering the fairness of the employer’s aproach. The ET had been entitled to reach the conclusion they did reach.
Judges:
May, Pill, Dyson LJJ
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 402, [2004] IRLR 636
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – London Underground Ltd v Strouthos EAT 4-Jun-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason. . .
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 – Foley v Post Office; HSBC Bank Plc (Formerly Midland Bank Plc) v Madden CA 31-Jul-2000
When an Employment Tribunal looked at whether a dismissal was reasonable, the test related not to an assessment of what tribunal members would think or do, but rather whether to ask whether the employer’s response was within a ‘band or range of . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Cunningham EAT 2-Nov-1995
The council appealed a finding that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. He worked in the Cleansing Department, but took on additional private work in refuge disposal in breach of his contract. A co-worker who had done the same was not . .
Cited – AEI Cables Limited v McLay SCS 1980
It was found that the only remaining reason for supporting the decision that the dismissal was unfair, was identified as the employee’s length of service — the remaining reason given by the industrial tribunal for finding the dismissal unfair.
Cited – Bentley Engineering Co Ltd v Mistry EAT 1978
In employment disciplinary proceedings, natural justice required that a man should have a chance to state his own case and to know sufficiently what was being said against him, so that he could put forward his own case properly.
Slynn J said: . .
Cited – Fuller v Lloyds Bank PLC EAT 1991
The tribunal emphasised the need for a disciplinary procedure to be fair in providing an employee opportunities to know the case against him, and the evidence, and to be given chance to dispute that evidence. . .
Cited – Spink v Express Foods Limited EAT 1990
Wood J said: ‘It is a fundamental part of a fair disciplinary procedure that an employee know the case against him. Fairness requires that someone accused should know the case to be met; should hear or be told the important parts of the evidence in . .
See Also – London Underground Ltd v Strouthos CA 17-Dec-2003
Application for permission to appeal from EAT – granted . .
Cited by:
Cited – Mars UK Ltd T/A Masterfoods v K Parker EAT 24-Oct-2005
EAT Whether an Employment Tribunal took a permissible approach to determining that a dismissal was unfair, in circumstances in which it did not clearly set out the terms of section 98 of the Employment Rights Act . .
Cited – Knight v Treherne Care and Consultancy Ltd EAT 15-Apr-2009
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
The Employment Tribunal erred when it found the employee was not unfairly dismissed. There was no disciplinary hearing. In the light of London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small [2009] . .
Cited – Leonard v Scottish Prison Service EAT 18-Jul-2012
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
Dismissal of prison officer for gross misconduct, namely that he was ‘negligent in [his] duty in failing to take appropriate action when an incident . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195112