EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reinstatement/Re-engagement
Claimant a teacher working for an institution responsible for schools in different parts of the country – Held to have been unfairly dismissed – In correspondence connected with the proceedings makes allegations of misconduct against the Respondent as an institution and members of its HR Department – Tribunal holds that those allegations were not such as to render it impracticable for him to be re-engaged at a different school in a different part of the country
HELD, dismissing the appeal, that on the particular facts of the case the Tribunal was entitled to make a re-engagement order – Nothman v London Borough of Barnet (no. 2) [1980] IRLR 65 and Wood Group Heavy Industrial Turbines Ltd. v Crossan [1998] IRLR 680 distinguished
Underhill J
[2013] UKEAT 0364 – 12 – 1705, [2013] UKEAT 0365 – 12 – 1705
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – Nothman v Barnet London Borough County Council (No 2) CA 1980
Ormrod, LJ discussed the making of an order for re-instatement after an unfair dismissal finding, saying: ‘Miss Nothman has mentioned in her proposed Notice of Appeal (and from time to time touched on it in this Court) what she believes to be the . .
Distinguished – Wood Group Heavy Industrial Turbines Ltd v Crossham EAT 1998
Re-instatement may be inappropriate where an employer has lost confidence in an employee. The Employment Tribunal’s order for re-engagement was set aside where the Respondent genuinely believed that the Claimant was using and dealing in drugs in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.509330