Unfair dismissal
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.
Where an employee is absent from work for a substantial period of time through illness it is well established that employers must take proper steps to ascertain the true medical position and, once this has been done, to consult with the employee before deciding whether or not to dismiss. However, as the EAT has recently emphasised in International Sports Co Ltd v Thomson and Rolls-Royce Ltd v Walpole, these principles are inappropriate where the employee is frequently absent as a result of unconnected minor ailments.
In Genower v Ealing, Hammersmith & Hounslow Area Health Authority [1980] IRLR 297 EAT, the EAT held that the attempt by the respondent employers to change the appellant's job duties and place of work following a reorganisation, albeit a breach of contract which justified him in resigning and claiming that he had been dismissed within the meaning of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act, section 55(2)(c), was a dismissal for some other substantial reason and was reasonable in all the circumstances.
In Savage v J Sainsbury Ltd [1980] IRLR 109 CA, the Court of Appeal held that where a disciplinary procedure provides a right of appeal against dismissal and treats the employee as suspended without pay until the appeal is heard, the effective date of termination if the appeal is rejected is when the dismissal initially took effect and not when the appeal was rejected.
In Ford v Milthorn Toleman Ltd [1980] IRLR 30 CA, the Court of Appeal upheld the EAT's finding that an employee was entitled to claim constructive dismissal when, upon receiving his notice that he was to join a competitor, his employers removed his duties as a sales manager and proposed to change the basis of his remuneration.
The Court of Appeal held, in Hollister v National Farmers' Union, that Mr Hollister's dismissal for refusing to accept the terms of a re-organisation amounted to some other substantial reason for dismissal. And in Banerjee v City & East London AHA, the EAT overturned an Industrial Tribunal's decision that Mr Banerjee's dismissal from his post of part-time consultant surgeon following a decision to replace part-timers with full-timers was for some other substantial reason.
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.
In Sutton & Gates (Luton) Ltd v Boxall [1978] IRLR 486 EAT, the EAT held that the Industrial Tribunal had not erred in holding that the respondent employee's dismissal on grounds of lack of capability was unfair because he had not been given an opportunity to offer an explanation for his poor performance.
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.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to unfair dismissal.