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 different kind, for which on its own a final warning might well have been sufficient. ET held a dismissal unfair because it thought the first warning was not in respect of similar conduct and should have been held in abeyance since there were ongoing proceedings about it, because it thought the employee was justified in his conduct on the earlier occasion, and his misconduct then was not culpable. Held that it did not follow guidance in earlier cases. It had substituted its own approach for that of the employer. There was force in criticism of the ET’s approach to material facts, which it was unnecessary finally to resolve given the errors of law.
Mr Gregory was a driver, who was disqualified for drink driving. ET held that the employer had not acted reasonably in assuring him it would seek out alternative employment, when it did not do so, and in then telling him he would be dismissed but could thereafter apply to fill any vacancies (of which there were a number) on the same footing as any external applicant. It was not in issue on the appeal that the employer had a duty to take reasonable steps to help the employee to secure alternative employment in its undertaking (though the EAT regarded it as highly arguable that this was not the law). Given that, and findings of fact which the ET was entitled to make, the appeal would be dismissed.
Langstaff J gave specific guidance to tribunals: ‘If a tribunal is not satisfied that the first warning was issued for an oblique motive or was manifestly inappropriate or, put another way, was not issued in good faith nor with prima facie grounds for making it, then the earlier warning will be valid. If it is so satisfied, the earlier warning will not be valid and cannot and should not be relied upon subsequently.’
Langstaff P J
[2012] UKEAT 0011 – 12 – 1110, [2013] IRLR 178, [2013] ICR D6
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .
Cited – Fallahi v TWI Ltd (Unfair Dismissal) EAT 17-Aug-2021
‘Manifestly Inapproproiate’ is a general Test
The Appellant was employed as Senior Project Leader – Technology. The Respondent raised issues about his performance. On 26 January 2016 an informal performance management process commenced and objectives were set, with targets to be measured in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 August 2021; Ref: scu.466342