The Court discussed how to evaluate whether the employers acted reasonably: ‘Whether someone acted reasonably is always a pure question of fact. Where parliament has directed a tribunal to have regard to equity – and that, of course, means common fairness and not a particular branch of the law – and to the substantial merits of the case, the tribunal’s duty is really very plain. It has to look at the question in the round and without regard to a lawyer’s technicalities. It has to look at it in an employment and industrial relations context and not in the context of the Temple and Chancery Lane.’
The purpose of the tribunal’s decision was to tell the parties why they have won or lost.
Donaldson LJ discussed the standard of reasons to be given: ‘Industrial Tribunals’ reasons are not intended to include a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the case, either in terms of fact or in law . . their purpose remains what it has always been, which is to tell the parties in broad terms why they lose or, as the case may be, win. I think it would be a thousand pities if these reasons began to be subjected to a detailed analysis and appeals were to be brought based upon any such analysis. This, to my mind, is to misuse the purpose for which the reasons are given.’
Judges:
Donaldson LJ
Citations:
[1981] IRLR 225, [1981] ICR 542
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Meek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .
Cited – TSB Bank Plc v L M Harris EAT 1-Dec-1999
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for Dismissal
The employer appealed a finding against them. An employee, when applying for another job, discovered that the reference given revealed many complaints against her . .
Cited – H v East Sussex County Council and Others CA 31-Mar-2009
The claimant had a statement of special educational needs, which she sought to have altered to specify a different school. She appealed from a refusal to amend the statement, saying that the Tribunal had not given sufficient weight to educational . .
Cited – W v Leeds City Council and SENDIST CA 29-Jul-2005
The court recognised a distinction between educational and non-educational provision as it affected a statement of special educational needs. Judge LJ: ‘Consistent with the relevant statutory provision, Part 3 of the Statement must make provision . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.183410
