There has been much local comment and some criticism of the
Jersey Employment Tribunal since 8 January this year, when the
Royal Court handed down a judgment which overturned a decision on
unfair dismissal made by the Tribunal in July 2013.
The case is of particular interest to any employer who has gone
before a Tribunal and has found their decision to dismiss was
unfair and/or wrong.
The employer was Voisins Department Store Limited, who
investigated the report of theft, followed its disciplinary process
and found the employee (Mr S) guilty of gross misconduct. He was
summarily dismissed and not paid in lieu of notice. When Mr S's
internal appeal was unsuccessful, he started claims before the
Tribunal for both unfair and wrongful dismissal, and was successful
Voisins appealed both decisions. Appeals to the Court are
limited to a point of law. The Court found that in relation to Mr
S's claim for unfair dismissal, the Tribunal had substituted
its own view for that of Voisins during the investigation and
Substitution is regularly a ground for an appeal to the
Employment Appeal Tribunal in the UK and sometimes further appeals
to the Court of Appeal. Substitution can, and has, occurred in our
Island's Tribunal, but this does not mean that it is
incompetent or unfit for purpose.
How does substitution arise? In an unfair dismissal case, the
function of a Tribunal is to review the fairness of the
employer's decision. It must avoid re-trying the factual issues
or substituting its own view about the facts. It should not focus
on whether the employee is guilty or innocent, but confine itself
to reviewing the reasonableness of the employer's actions.
The Court of Appeal in England has previously commented that
"it is all too easy, even for an experienced [employment
tribunal], to slip into the substitution mindset". This is
particularly so in misconduct cases where the employee, intent on
clearing their name and reputation, may present a Tribunal with
more evidence than they did during the internal hearings.
If a dismissal is found to be unfair (having applied well known
principles that have been established in previous case-law over a
number of years), then the Tribunal will be obliged to make its own
findings as to the conduct of the employee. However, such findings
should not be allowed to seep into a Tribunal's reasoning as to
the fairness of the dismissal in the first place. This is what can
happen in practice and what the Court found occurred in Mr S's
case when the Tribunal considered it.
Guidance on the issue of substitution of mindset was issued by
the Court of Appeal in England last year when it considered another
case of gross misconduct which had resulted in a summary dismissal,
which a Tribunal had gone on to consider to be unfair. In Tayeh v
Barchester Healthcare Limited, it was found that the Tribunal had
erred in its approach to the evidence – instead of starting
with BHL's reasoning in relation to certain documentation
(regarding the falsification of company records), and then applying
the range of responses test, it had substituted its own conclusion
as to whether dismissal for the alleged conduct fell within the
range of responses of the reasonable employer.
We may still not have seen, or heard, the end of the dispute
between Mr S and Voisins! As it is possible for an employer's
decision to dismiss to be found to have been fair but nonetheless
wrongful, the Court did not go on to consider the Tribunal's
decision in respect of Mr S's claim for wrongful dismissal.
Instead, it suggested that the Tribunal consider this again in
light of its decision in the unfair dismissal claim. If the
Tribunal was to again award Mr S a sum equivalent to his notice
pay, I would be surprised if Voisins do not appeal further and if
it does, the Court will have to adjudicate on Mr S's wrongful
dismissal claim after all.
If you have represented yourself, or your business, in an unfair
dismissal case before the Tribunal, and are concerned that the
decision may have involved a substitution of its own findings, then
you could consider seeking permission to appeal from the Tribunal.
Even if this is rejected, you are not prevented from subsequently
applying for leave directly from the Court.
Legal advice could tell you whether there is possible merit in
proceeding with an appeal to the Court. Depending on the value of
the sums awarded for unfair and/or wrongful dismissal, it may, or
may not, be economic to do so.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
On 1 January 2017 the Financial Services Rule Book 2016 comes into operation. With this will be the requirement on all Isle of Man licence holders to establish, implement and maintain an effective whistleblowing policy.
The Ministry of Human Resources has recently issued a string of new ministerial resolutions and decrees designed to address gaps in the employment regulatory framework and reinforce existing legislation...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).