Misconduct dismissals
The EAT can overturn industrial tribunal decisions on the ground either that there has been an error of law, or that the decision was perverse. In Dobie v Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that these are alternative not cumulative reasons for allowing an appeal.
In Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones the EAT has reviewed the decisions on the test of reasonableness as required by s.57(3) of the EP(C)A. They stress the importance of considering the range of reasonable responses and warn against the test which states that a dismissal is unfair only if no sensible or reasonable employer could have arrived at that decision, as this approach could result in a misunderstanding of the law.
In Monie v Coral Racing Ltd [1980] IRLR 464 CA, the Court of Appeal held that where an employer reasonably believes that one of two, or possibly both, employees are involved in dishonesty, but it is impossible for it to determine which of them is guilty, it may be reasonable to dismiss both of them, as long as the employer acts reasonably in all the circumstances of the case.
In Ladbroke Racing Ltd v Arnott and others [1979] IRLR 192 EAT, the EAT held that the Industrial Tribunal was entitled to find that the respondent betting shop employees had been unfairly dismissed on grounds of placing bets on behalf of outside persons or condoning such bets, notwithstanding that the appellants' disciplinary rules specified that such conduct would result in immediate dismissal.
The correct approach to cases of suspected misconduct in general - and suspected dishonesty in particular - was set out last year by the EAT in British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell.
Generally, dismissal of an employee for a single act of misconduct where the offence in question is specified as one that will result in dismissal under the company's disciplinary rules and procedure, is likely to result in a finding of fair dismissal. But, as Laws Stores Ltd v Oliphant shows, this will not always be so.
In Taylor v Alidair Ltd, the Appeal Court upholds a finding by the Employment Appeal Tribunal that it was not unfair to dismiss a pilot on the basis of a single error of judgement. And in Retarded Children's Aid Society Ltd v Day, it holds that the Code of Practice notwithstanding, in some cases it may be reasonable to dismiss without giving the employee a second chance, "especially with a man who is determined to go on in his own way".
In LM Boychuk v HJ Symons Holdings Ltd [1977] IRLR 395 EAT, the EAT held that an employee who insisted on wearing a "Lesbians Ignite" badge was fairly dismissed because the employer asserted that the badge could cause offence to fellow employees and customers.
In Devis & Sons v Atkins, the House of Lords rules that whether a dismissal is unfair must be judged according to the facts which the employer knew or should have known at the time the decision to dismiss was taken.
In C A Treganowan v Robert Knee & Co Ltd [1975] IRLR 247 HC, the High Court held that a clash of personalities between employees constitutes "another substantial reason" for dismissal within the meaning of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to misconduct dismissals.