The appellant had been dismissed after using the company email to forward an inappropriate email in breach of the company’s policies. Later he was disciplined for making an appointment in breach of the company’s procedures. He again misused the company’s email system and was dismissed, but several others were also. The company had offered a possible amnesty for those self reporting abuse of the system. The appellant did disclose his activities, but continued, andf was eventually dismissed. He appealed now saying that warnings had not been given in good faith.
Held: The employee’s appeal succeeded.
Christopher Clake LJ said: ‘a warning given in bad faith is not, in circumstances such as these, to be taken into account in deciding whether there is, or was, sufficient reason for dismissing an employee. An employer would not be acting reasonably in taking into account such a warning when deciding whether the employee’s conduct was sufficient reason for dismissing him; and it would not be in accordance with equity or the substantial merits of the case to do so.’
A fresh tribunal would have to consider and decide wether the earlier warning had been given in bad faith.
Hallett, Patten, Christopher Clarke LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 381
Bailii
Employment Rights Act 1996 98(4)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Dobie v Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd CA 14-May-1984
The employee worked as a security officer for the appellant, which was in turn employed by the respondent to provide security for an airport controlled by the Merseyside City Council. The Council had the right of approval of any employee of the . .
Cited – Wincanton Group Plc v Stone and Another EAT 11-Oct-2012
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
Mr Stone first had a written warning for misconduct in November 2009. Within the currency of the warning, he committed a disciplinary offence of a . .
Cited – Davies v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council CA 26-Feb-2013
Lewison LJ said that Employment Tribunals should exercise more active control over cases before them, saying: ‘The function of the Employment Tribunal is a limited one. It is to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the . .
Cited – Way v Spectrum Property Care Ltd EAT 6-Mar-2014
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
The Claimant was dismissed for misconduct in relation to the employer’s email policy following an earlier final written warning for other misconduct involving breach of company . .
Cited – Jafri v Lincoln College CA 16-Apr-2014
The claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure had been rejected by the ET and EAT. The court was asked whether the claimant could rely upon a point not previously raised.
Held: The appeal failed. Where a court . .
Cited – Tilson v Alstom Transport CA 19-Nov-2010
The parties disputed whether the claimant agency worker was in law the employee of the respondent.
Held: The test was whether it was necessary to infer such a contract to explain the conduct of the parties (Elias LJ). The EAT were right to . .
Cited – Burrell v Micheldever Tyre Services Ltd CA 23-May-2014
Maurice Kaye LJ considered the observations of Elias LJ in the case of Tilson v Alstom Transport and the impact of Jafri, saying: ‘However, even within the confines of the conventional approach, the Employment Appeal Tribunal can contain its . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.545701
