Misconduct dismissals

New and updated

• Type:

  FAQs

  How does a tribunal gauge whether an employee has been unfairly dismissed on the basis of misconduct?

• Date:

  15 April 2001

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Misconduct: Band of reasonable responses test applicable to procedure as well as outcome

  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.

• Date:

  1 November 2000

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Unfair dismissal: Tribunals should continue to apply band of reasonable responses and Burchell tests

  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.

• Date:

  1 April 2000

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Misconduct: Range of reasonable responses test is not wrong

  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.

• Date:

  1 January 1998

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Misconduct: Dismissal for disobeying unlawful instruction not necessarily unfair

  In Farrant v Woodroffe School, the EAT holds that a dismissal is not necessarily unfair where the reason for it was the employer's genuine but mistaken belief that the employee was refusing to obey an instruction falling within the scope of his contract of employment.

• Date:

  1 January 1997

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Misconduct: Drunken employees were unfairly dismissed

  In Williams and others v Whitbread Beer Co the Court of Appeal restores the decision of an industrial tribunal that an employer unfairly dismissed three employees for drunken, abusive and violent behaviour in circumstances where the misconduct took place outside work and where it was the employer who had provided the opportunity for the employees to drink.

• Date:

  15 June 1996

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Misconduct: Aggravating factors justified disparity of treatment

  An employee was fairly dismissed for misconduct even though another employee who was guilty of the same conduct was treated differently and given a final written warning, holds the EAT in London Borough of Harrow v Cunningham.

• Date:

  1 November 1995

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Misconduct: Dismissal of abusive employees was fair

  An employer's decision to dismiss three employees who became drunk, abusive and violent after a seminar aimed at improving their "behavioural skills" was manifestly reasonable, holds the EAT in Whitbread Beer Company v Williams and others.

• Date:

  1 June 1995

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Misconduct: Inconsistent treatment not established

  An industrial tribunal was not entitled to find that allegedly inconsistent treatment of employees rendered a dismissal for misconduct unfair, holds the Court of Appeal in Paul v East Surrey District Health Authority.

• Date:

  1 May 1995

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Unfair dismissal: Dismissal of competing employee was fair

  An employer is entitled to expect that an employee will not compete with it for contracts with existing customers, holds the EAT in Adamson v B&L Cleaning Services Ltd.