Misconduct dismissals
In Sarkar v West London Mental Health NHS Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 289 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employment tribunal was entitled to find that the employer had acted outside the range of reasonable responses when it summarily dismissed an employee for gross misconduct after initial agreement that the allegations against him would be dealt with under an informal procedure that was appropriate for relatively minor misconduct and could not lead to dismissal.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that it will only rarely be unfair for an employer to proceed with a disciplinary hearing prior to holding a related grievance appeal hearing.
In this case, an employee was fairly dismissed for disclosing details of job applicant.
In Central & North West London NHS Foundation Trust v Abimbola EAT/0542/08, the EAT held that the employment tribunal had wrongly excluded highly relevant factors from its consideration of whether or not it was practicable to order reinstatement following a finding of unfair dismissal.
In Sehmi v Gate Gourmet London Ltd; Sandhu and others v Gate Gourmet London Ltd EAT/0264/08 & EAT/0265/08, the EAT held that, while the withdrawal by an employee of his or her labour will not necessarily justify dismissal, in a situation where large numbers of employees deliberately absent themselves from work in a manner that is liable to do serious damage to the employer's business, dismissal of those taking part in the action will be reasonable, even where the absence is not prolonged.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employer did not unfairly dismiss an employee when it failed to investigate in detail the nature of his misconduct in circumstances where he had admitted his guilt.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employee's admission of gross misconduct limited the need for a detailed investigation by her employer prior to dismissal.
In Airbus UK Ltd v Webb [2008] IRLR 309, the Court of Appeal held that Diosynth Ltd v Thomson did not establish a rule of law that spent warnings must be ignored for all purposes. On the facts, where a spent warning was not part of the reason for the dismissal, but the basis for the employer's refusal to exercise leniency in respect of later gross misconduct, neither Diosynth nor the wording of s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 rendered the dismissal necessarily unfair.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that, in the circumstances of the case, the issue of disparate treatment did not arise when an employee was dismissed but another was not disciplined.
In Corus UK Ltd v Mainwaring EAT/0053/07, the EAT held that an employer did not act unreasonably when it failed to interview an informant who alleged that a fellow employee was malingering, as that allegation merely triggered a fair investigation. In addition, it was not necessary for the employer to seek medical evidence from a specialist consultant, it being reasonable for it to rely on evidence about the employee's medical condition from a GP.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to misconduct dismissals.