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 policies.
At the Employment Tribunal hearing he sought to challenge the bona fides of the warning but, notwithstanding that the parties had agreed that the validity of the warning was in issue and written evidence had been served on both sides relating to the issue and the relevant witnesses were available to be cross-examined, the Employment Judge excluded evidence of the background to the warning. He went on to find that the dismissal was fair in the light of the warning.
The EAT decided that the EJ was wrong to exclude this evidence and that it would have been better if he had heard it and made findings on it. However, the EAT dismissed the Claimant’s appeal on the basis that in all the circumstances it would have made no difference to the outcome because: (1) the warning required the Claimant to read and abide by company policies and he had indicated that he understood it and had not appealed it; (2) during the appeal against his dismissal he had for the first time challenged the warning and his points had been investigated and rejected; it was agreed before the ET that no complaint was being made about the conduct of the appeal; (3) the manager who had issued the warning was not involved in the disciplinary hearing leading to the dismissal or the appeal therefrom.
 UKEAT 0181 – 13 – 0603
England and Wales
Cited – Way v Spectrum Property Care Ltd CA 22-Apr-2015
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.526084