Misconduct dismissals
This case is a useful example for employers of how to carry out a disciplinary investigation and hearing into a violent incident, when the alleged victim or witnesses might feel intimidated.
Employers can use entries on websites such as Facebook and YouTube as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, as this case demonstrates.
In Secretary of State for Justice v Mansfield EAT/0539/09, the EAT held that the postponement of disciplinary proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings in respect of the employee's alleged misconduct did not render his eventual dismissal unfair.
In Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Roldan [2010] EWCA Civ 522 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employment tribunal was entitled to find a dismissal unfair where the reason for the dismissal included an allegation about a secondary incident that had not been particularised, and where there had been a failure to investigate a key dispute of fact between the accuser and accused.
In this case, the employment tribunal found that the employer had fairly dismissed an employee whom it believed had consumed alcohol while working.
The employment tribunal in this case increased the amount of compensation awarded to an unfairly dismissed employee because of his employer's failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment or to dismiss him in accordance with the Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures.
Ceri Hughes, David Parry, and Carly Mather, associates at Addleshaw Goddard, detail the latest rulings.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that, in the context of costs applications, it is unreasonable behaviour for a claimant to pursue an unfair dismissal claim purely for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that he or she was unfairly dismissed.
An employer's previous tolerance of misconduct can render a dismissal for that same misconduct unfair, as the employer in this case found to its cost.
In City of Edinburgh Council v Dickson EATS/0038/09, the EAT upheld the employment tribunal's decision that an employee whose employer failed properly to consider his explanation that he had behaved out of character during a hypoglycaemic episode was unfairly dismissed. However, the tribunal's conclusion that the employer's rejection of that explanation amounted to direct and disability-related discrimination was wrong in law and was overturned.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to misconduct dismissals.