UK: This Month's Top Employment Cases - May 1010

Last Updated: 28 May 2010
Article by Speechly Bircham Employment Group

Here is a brief summary of recent cases we think are of particular interest. If you would like advice on any particular area, please contact your usual Speechlys' contact or one of the employment partners.

Sarkar v West London Mental Health NHS Trust

The Court of Appeal has held that an employee's dismissal for gross misconduct was unfair in circumstances where the employer had initially been prepared to deal with the conduct through an informal process. The Trust had received complaints from Dr Sarkar's colleagues about allegations of bullying and harassment. Following investigation into the alleged misconduct, the Trust and Dr Sarkar agreed that the matter would be dealt with under the Trust's "Fair Blame Policy" ("FBP"). The FBP was in place as an alternative to the Trust's formal disciplinary policy and aimed to resolve less serious misconduct or capability issues, with the most severe sanction available under it being a first written warning.

Whilst the investigation was ongoing Dr Sarkar was involved in two further instances of misconduct. The Trust then sought to commence disciplinary proceedings against Dr Sarkar which included these additional allegations that had not formed part of the original investigation or the FBP procedure. Dr Sarkar was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct and brought a claim for unfair dismissal in the tribunal. The tribunal found that the dismissal was not within the range of reasonable responses. The Trust appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT"), which reversed the tribunal decision. Dr Sarkar appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that the employment tribunal had been correct to find in Dr Sarkar's favour and was entitled to conclude that the Trust's initial use of the FBP procedure indicated that the Trust considered the misconduct allegations to be relatively minor. As such, it was therefore inconsistent to base a finding of gross misconduct on the first set of allegations. In addition, it was held that the tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the second set of allegations against Dr Sarkar was not sufficiently serious to justify gross misconduct, either alone or in addition to the original allegations.

Key points for employers

Employers who do have the option of using different procedures for minor and more serious matters should be aware that their decision may be irreversible, unless they specifically reserve the right to impose higher sanctions within any policy for dealing with disciplinary matters in an informal manner. To avoid problems, employers should ensure that they have a proper basis for choosing to switch to a more serious formal procedure during a disciplinary process.

City of Edinburgh Council v Dickson

Alistair Dickson, was employed by Edinburgh Council as a community learning and development worker. Dickson had suffered from type 1 diabetes for more than 30 years, and was disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. In June 2007, the council received a complaint that Dickson had been viewing pornographic material on the school's computer. He was suspended and asked him to attend a disciplinary hearing. At the hearing, Dickson alleged that he had no recollection of viewing the indecent images and that his conduct and lack of memory were caused by a hypoglycaemic episode relating to his type-1 diabetes. Dickson said his condition had not been properly controlled in recent years and that it had been exacerbated at the time of the incident by a mis-prescription of insulin.

The council did not accept Dickson's explanation and dismissed him for gross misconduct. Dickson issued claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The tribunal found in Dickson's favour on both unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The employment tribunal was satisfied that the council had failed properly to investigate Dickson's defence of hypoglycaemia and that this defence would have been accepted if it had been properly considered. The tribunal found that his dismissal amounted to disability discrimination and ordered that Dickson should be reinstated and paid Ł25,000 compensation. The council appealed to the EAT.

EAT decision

The EAT upheld the Tribunal's decision, agreeing that Dickson's dismissal had been unfair and that reinstatement was appropriate. The EAT found that the council had failed to take proper steps to understand Dickson's explanation or the medical evidence that was available. The EAT said that if the council had undertaken a proper investigation, it probably would not have made the decision to dismiss Dickson and, as such, reinstatement was fair. Applying the House of Lord's decision in Lewisham v Malcolm, the EAT overturned the tribunal's decision that Dickson's dismissal amounted to disability discrimination. The EAT found that the council's rejection of Dickson's explanation was because they did not believe him, not because he was disabled.

Key points for employers

The decision is a useful reminder for employers that a full and thorough investigation should precede any decision to dismiss. The EAT was particularly critical of the council's reliance on the HR adviser's opinion (itself based on a conversation with his wife who was a pharmacist) that a hypoglycaemic episode was unlikely to be the cause of Dickson's behaviour. The case demonstrates that while ignoring a disability-related explanation may not necessarily mean that the dismissal itself is discriminatory, it is likely to make the dismissal unfair.

A v B

"A" was a senior civil servant, working for "B", a high profile public authority with responsibility for child protection, although A did not have contact with children himself. B knew that prior to A joining the authority, he had been arrested on suspicion of having sexually abused one or more children in an orphanage in Cambodia, but that A had subsequently been acquitted in May 2007.

In November 2007, B received further information from the Metropolitan Police Child Abuse Investigation Command (CAIC) alleging that A had engaged in other serious paedophile activity in Cambodia, which led the CAIC to believe that A posed a continuing threat to children. Officers from CAIC agreed to give limited disclosure to the local authority. They met with X, the public authority's HR adviser, and told her that the information they had provided was only "the tip of the iceberg". In January 2008, A was invited to a disciplinary meeting and then dismissed by B on the grounds of breach of trust and confidence. A brought claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal in the tribunal. The tribunal found that A had been fairly dismissed on the basis of a breakdown of the fundamental relationship of trust and confidence being "some other substantial reason" justifying dismissal, under s.98 (1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

EAT decision

The EAT upheld the tribunal's decision that the summary dismissal was fair. In particular, the EAT considered the risk of reputational damage to be sufficient grounds for reaching this conclusion and that it was reasonable for the authority to have taken the step to dismiss in those circumstances. The EAT also dismissed the wrongful dismissal claim. The EAT did however comment on the CAIC officers' approach to disclosure and recognised that the "tip of the iceberg" comment undermined the purpose of limited disclosure by adding a prejudicial gloss to the information which was passed to B, the authority.

Key points for employers

The EAT's comments illustrate that employers should investigate the basis of any tip offs which they receive about an employee if they wish to pursue a disciplinary route. The EAT also made it clear that an employer who receives information as part of an official disclosure process (in this case that the employee posed a risk to children) is entitled to treat the information as reliable.


Buckland v Bournemouth University

The Court of Appeal has ruled that a professor was entitled to resign and claim constructive dismissal after his exam papers were remarked without his knowledge. It was accepted that Professor Buckland's academic integrity had been seriously called into question after one of the University's programme leaders expressed concern that Professor Buckland failed 18 out of 60 students in an end of year exam. As a result, the Head of Department had the papers remarked and circulated the revised marks. Professor Buckland raised a grievance and the University set up an inquiry to consider the events. The inquiry's report vindicated Professor Buckland and criticised the Head of Department for approving the revised marks. Buckland decided to resign when the outcome of the inquiry was published, citing constructive dismissal on the grounds that his integrity as an examiner had been seriously undermined. The tribunal found that Professor Buckland had been dismissed because the remarking of the papers amounted to a fundamental breach of the contract of employment. The University appealed against the finding.

EAT decision

The EAT overturned the tribunal finding of constructive unfair dismissal and instead held that that the breach of contract had been cured by the internal inquiry which exonerated Professor Buckland. As such, Buckland was not constructively dismissed because the breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence had been repaired.

In addition, the EAT rejected the University's attempts to argue there could only be a fundamental breach of contract if the University's actions fell outside the range of reasonable responses.

Court of Appeal decision

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the EAT that the correct test for constructive dismissal is a contractual test rather than a "range of reasonable responses" test. The Court of Appeal, however, overturned the EAT's decision on liability and rejected the suggestion that a fundamental breach of contract could be cured by subsequent actions. As a result, the inquiry's report, whilst vindicating Buckland, could not cure the University's fundamental breach of his employment contract. Effectively, the Court decided that once a breach has taken place, it cannot be repaired.

Key points for employers

The case emphasises that proper procedures should be followed at all times and that serious lapses cannot be cured after the event. The facts of this case could equally apply to any other procedures (i.e.. appraisals, competency marking and redundancy scoring) where employers might seek to overrule a manager's input.

Raja v Secretary of State for Justice

An interim relief application under s.128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is a powerful tactical tool which Claimants can use against a Respondent. S.128 ERA provides that an employee bringing a claim for unfair dismissal who alleges that the dismissal occurred because of his activities as a union member, health and safety representative, employee representative for the purposes of TUPE, trustee of an occupational pension fund, or because he has made a protected disclosure, may apply for interim relief. If the tribunal find it is likely that the reason for his dismissal is one of those specified then it can require the employer to reinstate or re-engage the employee on the same terms as if he had not been dismissed, or, if an employer is unwilling to reinstate or re-engage the tribunal will make a continuation of employment order. The effect of such an order is that the contract of employment continues in force from the date of its termination until the determination or settlement of the complaint.

This gives the Claimant a useful opportunity to put the Respondent under high pressure at the outset of a claim, because it forces the Respondent to incur the cost of fighting the interim relief application and so increases the prospects of settlement dialogue being opened. Any payments made under an order cannot be recovered by the Respondent even if it succeeds at the full merits hearing. The Claimant can benefit from being fully funded throughout the claim. Naturally, it carries the risk of backfiring for the Claimant if the application is rejected.

EAT decision

The Raja case involved an appeal brought in the EAT after his interim relief application was rejected by the tribunal. The EAT was concerned with two points of appeal. The first was what the meaning of the word "likely" ought to be in relation to the test for an interim relief application. The EAT considered previous case law and decided that the right approach was whether the applicant had established a "pretty good" chance of succeeding in the final application to the tribunal. The second point of appeal in Raja was whether the tribunal judge was correct to refuse to hear Raja's application because of the volume of material produced to the hearing - which the employment judge at tribunal had deemed inappropriate in an application for an "emergency order". The EAT disagreed and decided that the mere volume of material was not in itself a reason to refuse the application.

Key points for employers

The Claimant only has a small window of opportunity within seven days of the termination date to submit an interim relief application. Employers should be on their guard because the tribunal will aim to list the interim relief application quickly so the employer needs to be prepared to respond quickly and prepare thoroughly once it is on notice of an interim relief application. Oral evidence is not usually required.

Shanahan Engineering Ltd v Unite the Union

Where an employer proposes to make 20 or more employees redundant within a period of 90 days, it must inform and consult with appropriate representatives of affected employees for a prescribed period based on the numbers involved. Failure to do so can result in an employment tribunal ordering a "protective award" of up to 90 days of pay per employee.

In Shanahan Engineering Limited, the company argued that "special circumstances" excused it from the requirement to inform and consult. In 2007 Shanahan won a contract for work on a power station being constructed by Alstom. The work involved the construction of two generators, being built simultaneously on a site. Under the contract Shanahan was paid the costs of the labour it used together with a fee. Alstom had the power to instruct Shanahan whether to start, stop or not to start any work. In April 2008, a problem on site was caused by congestion and ground conditions. On 30 April, Shanahan submitted proposals to eliminate the problem including a proposal to build the generators consecutively.

Alstom accepted the proposal and instructed Shanahan on 1 May 2008 to reschedule its remaining works with immediate effect and review its resources on site in line with the new schedule. Alstom expected this to result in the immediate reduction of labour, subject to consultation in line with statutory requirements. Alstom asked for confirmation that Shanahan had implemented these action by close of business on 1 May. Shanahan proceeded to make 50 employees redundant with effect from 2 May 2008 but did not inform or consult with representatives of the affected employees.

In response, Unite brought a claim to the tribunal seeking protective awards on behalf of the affected employees. Shanahan argued that it was excused from the requirement to inform and consult as special circumstances existed.

The tribunal found that special circumstances did exist, in that Shanahan had been faced with a situation whereby, suddenly, it no longer required as many employees as it had previously. These circumstances relieved Shanahan of the obligation to start consultation. The special circumstances did not, however, entirely remove the requirement to inform and consult. The tribunal felt that Shanahan should still have complied with its obligations, even within the short timescale that was available to it of a few days. As a result of this failure to consult, the tribunal ordered Shanahan to pay each of the dismissed employees of 90 days pay (gross). The level of these awards is currently being reviewed and it is likely they will be reduced; however, each employee will still receive some award.

EAT decision

Shanahan appealed but the EAT upheld the tribunal's decision that the company was in breach of the consultation obligations. The EAT held that the Tribunal had failed to justify its reasons for granting a protective award of 90 days. The case was remitted to the tribunal to reconsider the award.

Key points for employers

A sub-contractor instructed to suspend works, resulting in a sudden reduction in staff numbers, may not need to comply fully with the duty to inform and consult. It should, however, aim to comply as far as possible within the available timeframe to minimise the risk of a protective award being made.

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.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
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).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.