Misconduct dismissals
In Strouthos v London Underground Ltd the Court of Appeal holds that the EAT was incorrect to infer an employee's dishonesty from the facts found by the tribunal, when dishonesty had not been alleged in the original disciplinary proceedings.
In Pay v Lancashire Probation Service, the EAT holds that a probation officer with specific responsibility for sex offenders, who was publicly engaged in sadomasochistic activities in his spare time, did not have his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights breached when he was dismissed upon discovery of those activities.
In Fraser v Stolt Offshore Ltd [2003] All ER (D) 185 (Apr) EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an employer can issue a warning to a fixed-term employee that will be valid for a longer period than the fixed-term contract. The warning will carry over into the next contract and the employee does not have to be notified of this when he accepts the next contract.
In Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt, the Court of Appeal emphasises that the "band of reasonable responses" test applies to the question of the reasonableness of an employer's investigations into alleged misconduct, as it does to other procedural and substantive aspects of the decision to dismiss.
In Ngengfack v London Borough of Southwark [2002] EWCA Civ 711 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employee who had been seen working in the hairdressing salon that she owned while on sick leave from her teaching job had been fairly dismissed.
Continuing our series on the implications of recent significant cases, Hugh Calloway, associate solicitor in the commercial litigation department at Glanvilles Solicitors looks at issues surrounding some employment-related disputes. This week: drugs policies and misconduct.
This week's case roundup, covering unfair dismissal and redundancy procedures laid down in collective agreements.
In a case where misconduct is admitted by the employee, the requirement of reasonableness in s.98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 relates not only to the outcome in terms of the penalty imposed by the employer, but also to the process by which the employer arrived at that decision, holds the Court of Appeal in Whitbread plc (trading as Whitbread Medway Inns) v Hall.
Both the "band or range of reasonable responses" approach to the issue of the reasonableness or unreasonableness of a dismissal and the tripartite "Burchell test" remain binding on the Court of Appeal, as well as on employment tribunals and the EAT, holds the Court of Appeal in Post Office v Foley and HSBC Bank plc (formerly Midland Bank plc) v Madden.
In Midland Bank plc v Madden, the EAT holds that, while no court short of the Court of Appeal can discard the range or band of reasonable responses test as a determinative test, a tribunal is free to substitute its own views for those of the employer as to the reasonableness of dismissal as a response to the reason shown for it.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to misconduct dismissals.