The State Hospitals Board for Scotland v Hughes: EAT 8 Feb 2007

EAT In a claim for unfair dismissal where the claimant had written a document in which other employees were criticised and which gave rise to various concerns on the part of his employers, the Employment Tribunal approached the issue of whether or not there had been unfair dismissal on the basis that the onus of establishing that the dismissal was fair was on the respondents and that the claimant had not been dismissed on grounds relating to his conduct (or on any other potentially fair grounds). Despite that finding, the Tribunal went on to consider fairness. They appeared to have posed a test of whether a reasonable employer would have found the claimant’s conduct so wilful, gross or reckless that dismissal would be fair. They appeared to have substituted their own view as to whether or not dismissal was the appropriate response rather than apply the range of reasonable responses test. Further, they stated that the test of whether or not a dismissal was fair had to be applied having regard to all factors pertinent to the claimant, not primarily with regard to the interests of the respondent organisation. The Tribunal went on to consider remedy although they had not been asked to do so and had not heard evidence or submissions thereanent; they issued a provisional view that there should be an order for re-engagement but without any specification as to what might be contained in any such order. Further, the judgment they originally issued contained over forty errors and two sections at the end which had no understandable bearing on the decision but appeared to be extracts from the claimant’s submissions. A Certificate of Correction was issued in which the entire judgment was reissued. Not all errors had, though, been eliminated. Circumstances in which the respondents’ appeal was allowed; the Tribunal had made several fundamental errors of law and their apparently careless attitude to the issuing of the judgment was a cause for concern.

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0045 – 06 – 0802, UKEATS/0045/06

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Citing:

CitedJ Sainsbury Ltd v Hitt; Orse Sainsburys Supermarkets Limited v Hitt CA 18-Oct-2002
Reasobaleness of Investigation Judged Objectively
The employer appealed against a decision that it had unfairly dismissed the respondent. The majority of the Employment Tribunal had decided that the employers had not carried out a reasonable investigation into the employee’s alleged misconduct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Scotland

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251291