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 workplace and had been guilty of clocking offences. Although the dismissal was found to be unfair due to a lack of proper investigation and failure by the Respondent to follow a fair procedure, the breakdown in trust and confidence given the nature of the allegations and the employer’s genuine belief in them meant that it was impractical to order re-engagement.
Lord Johnston said: ‘We consider that the remedy of re-engagement has very limited scope and will only be practical in the rarest of cases where there is a breakdown in confidence as between the employer and the employee. Even if the way the matter is handled results in a finding of unfair dismissal, the remedy, in that context, invariably to our minds will be compensation.
That general proposition applies to this particular case, even if it be the case that the witnesses asserted, as a matter of generality including fellow employees, there was no animosity likely to be exhibited towards the respondent. We cannot lose sight of the fact that in addition to his general defence of conspiracy, in one of his interviews the respondent asserted positively that a number of other people had been ‘out to get him’ by reason of incidents in another part of the factory. That does not seem to us to be merely a knee-jerk reaction to specific allegations. All in all, it seems to us there are sufficient factors bearing on the issue of practicability in this case, such as we have rehearsed, to render it impracticable to order re-engagement.’
Judges:
Lord Johnston
Citations:
[1998] IRLR 680
Citing:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – M Iqbal v Consignia Plc EAT 5-Dec-2002
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal
The claimant had had his claims for discrimination rejected. He was found to have been unfairly dismissed, but with nil compensation because of what was found to . .
Distinguished – Wolff v Oasis Community Learning (Unfair Dismissal : Reinstatement/Re-Engagement) EAT 17-May-2013
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Scotland
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.194935