West Midlands Co-operative Society v Tipton: HL 1986

All information available to an employer at the date of the termination of the employment relationship is relevant when considering the fairness of dismissal, and also any information becoming available during the course of, for example, an internal appeal, even post-termination, is relevant.
An employer may be considered to have acted unfairly if he refuses to permit the employee to pursue a right of appeal.
Lord Bridge of Harwich said: ‘Both the original and the appellate decision by the employer, in any case where the contract of employment provides for an appeal and the right of appeal is invoked by the employee, are necessary elements in the overall process of terminating the contract of employment. To separate them and consider only one half of the process . . is to introduce an unnecessary artificiality.’ After considering the Savage case, Lord Bridge said: ‘Adopting the analysis which found favour in J Sainsbury Ltd v Savage, [1981] ICR I, if the domestic appeal succeeds the employee is reinstated with retrospective effect; if it fails the summary dismissal takes effect from the original date. Thus, in so far as the original dismissal and the decision on the domestic appeal are governed by the same consideration, sc the real reason for dismissal, there is no reason to treat the effective date of termination as a watershed which separates the one process from the other.’
Lord Bridge of Harwich
[1986] ICR 192, [1986] 1 All ER 513
England and Wales
Citing:
ApprovedSavage v J Sainsbury Ltd CA 1980
Brightman LJ discussed the effect on time requirements of an employee’s appeal against the employers decision to dismiss him: ‘The matter came before the Employment Appeal Tribunal with commendable expedition on 4.10.78. Judgment was reserved until . .
CitedPost Office v Crouch 1974
Lord Reid said that that statutory provisions for claims for unfair dismissal ‘must be construed in a broad and reasonable way so that legal technicalities shall not prevail against industrial realities and common sense’
The idea of . .

Cited by:
CitedGate Gourmet v J B Jangra EAT 12-Dec-2000
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Other
The employer appealed a finding of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. She suffered an apparently minor injury, but which led to long standing disability with varying . .
CitedTaylor v OCS Group Ltd CA 31-May-2006
The employer appealed against findings of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The employee worked in IT. He was profoundly deaf, but could lip read and read sign language. He had been accused of obtaining improper access to a senior . .
CitedPrakash v Wolverhampton City Council EAT 1-Sep-2006
EAT The Claimant was employed on a fixed term contract. During the terms of the contract he was dismissed for misconduct and made an application to the Employment Tribunal (ET) claiming unfair dismissal. He . .
CitedPrakash v Wolverhampton City Council EAT 1-Sep-2006
EAT The Claimant was employed on a fixed term contract. During the terms of the contract he was dismissed for misconduct and made an application to the Employment Tribunal (ET) claiming unfair dismissal. He . .
CitedFirst Hampshire and Dorset Ltd v Parhar EAT 10-May-2012
parharEAT2012
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
Ill health capability dismissal. Section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 reasonableness judged by Employment Tribunal only as at EDT; ET ought to have . .
CitedRoyal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti SC 27-Nov-2019
‘if a person in the hierarchy of responsibility above the employee determines that she (or he) should be dismissed for a reason but hides it behind an invented reason which the decision-maker adopts, the reason for the dismissal is the hidden reason . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 March 2021; Ref: scu.181803