UK: A Tale Of Three Unfair Dismissal Appeals, Anthony Korn Explores The Lessons To Be Learnt From The Court Of Appeal Rulings In Orr v Milton Keynes Council, Bowater v Northwest London Hospitals NHS Trust And Fuller v London Borough Of Brent

Last Updated: 1 August 2011
Article by Anthony Korn

In Orr v Milton Keynes Council [2011] IRLR 317, O was dismissed for discussing with some young people at a community centre a sexual assault that had recently taken place when he was expressly instructed not to do so. Disciplinary proceedings were also brought against him because he had become rude and truculent towards his manager, M, in the course of a discussion about working hours. The disciplinary hearing was conducted by a group manager, C, who found both allegations established and O was dismissed for his behaviour in relation to both incidents. O complained of race discrimination and unfair dismissal. The ET upheld his race discrimination complaint on the basis that M had made some racist comments in the course of the meeting but held that the dismissal by C was neither discriminatory nor unfair because he was unaware of the comments. This was because O had refused to participate in the disciplinary process and C was unaware of M's discriminatory comments. On appeal, O's Counsel sought to argue that the employers were deemed to be aware of the comments made by M because of his management status. However, the Court of Appeal, by a majority, rejected this argument. The issue, as in all cases of misconduct, was whether at the time of dismissal, the employers believed on reasonable grounds that O had committed acts of misconduct which were of sufficient seriousness to justify dismissal. It was quite reasonable in principle for an employer to delegate the investigation to a "person within the organisation who has sufficient skill and experience to carry it out effectively having regard to the nature of the allegations and the position of the employee against whom [the allegations] are made". The majority ruled that the knowledge held by another employee, even of management level, cannot be imputed to the person who investigates the matter or the employer on behalf of whom the investigation is undertaken. If the investigation is as thorough as could reasonably be expected, it will support a reasonable belief in the findings, whether or not some piece of information has fallen through the net. C could not therefore be imputed with the knowledge of M's behaviour.


On first blush, the outcome of this case may seem surprising but, despite the dissent of Sedley LJ, the majority's approach is consistent with the earlier unfair dismissal case law. O's big mistake was his refusal to participate in the disciplinary process and to put C on notice of the discriminatory comments which had been made to him. C would then have been under a duty to investigate those comments and to consider whether the comments were mitigating factors in relation to the second offence.


Bowater v Northwest London Hospitals NHS Trust [2011] IRLR 231 and Fuller v London Borough of Brent [2011] IRLR 414 both raise the issue of whether the Employment Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses and therefore unfair.


In Bowater, B was a senior staff nurse who worked at the Central Middlesex Hospital. In the course of restraining an epileptic patient, who was having an epileptic fit, she climbed on to the end of trolley and was sitting astride the patient's ankles which allowed a doctor sufficient time to administer a second injection. Whilst straddling the patient, B was heard to say: "it's been a few months since I have been in this position with a man underneath me". The disciplinary panel found that the method of restraint was inappropriate and unacceptable and the remark made by B was unprofessional. B was summarily dismissed. Prior to the incident, her disciplinary record was clear. The Employment Tribunal upheld B's complaint. The ET considered that the panel was unreasonable in concluding that B was responsible for the inappropriate method of restraint as the primary responsibility did not rest with her and that the comment of itself was not sufficient to deprive a nurse of her career. Further, it found that no reasonable employer would have ignored the mitigating circumstances namely that B had not been trained in the restraint processes, she had volunteered to help having finished a 12 hour shift, the comment was made at the end of a very stressful experience, the comment was directed at herself rather than the patient, the comment was at worst lewd (and many would have regarded it as humorous), no member of the public overheard the comment and B had a clean disciplinary record. The issue on appeal was whether the ET had substituted its view for that reasonably taken by the employers. The EAT thought it had but its decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal. The Court noted that it was common ground that the remark was intended to be humorous (and the EAT had been wrong to refer to this fact as an indication that the ET had substituted its view for that of the employers). The ET had carefully addressed the primary facts and had made it clear where it had disagreed with the employer's judgment as to their seriousness. The ET was therefore entitled to come to the decision it did.

In Fuller, F was employed as a school bursar. The School specialised in teaching children with social and emotional difficulties. She witnessed an incident where an eight-year old was being vigorously restrained. She complained about the treatment and told the staff involved that they had to stop. The head teacher told F to go back to her office but she refused. A further investigation into the incident was carried out by the head teacher. F refused to participate in the investigation. (F had received a previous warning for an inappropriate intervention regarding a different child). F was eventually dismissed for gross misconduct, the disciplinary panel giving four reasons for its decision. Following an unsuccessful appeal, F complained of unfair dismissal. The ET accepted that the employers genuinely believed that F actions amounted to serious misconduct but asked whether that belief was based on a reasonable investigation. It did not directly answer that question, although it expressed concerns about the way in which the investigation had been conducted. The ET then went on to consider whether it was reasonable to dismiss and concluded that no reasonable employer would have dismissed for what was a "one-off" incident but would have imposed a lesser penalty. The Council appealed on the grounds that the ET has substituted its view for that reasonably taken by the School's Governors. The EAT thought it had but its decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal with former EAT President Mummery LJ presiding. In essence, the Court said that the tribunal had directed itself properly in law and in particular reminded itself that it should not substitute its own judgment for that of the employer. The ET had answered that question in an objective manner and was entitled to conclude for the reasons it had given that the dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses.

These decisions are perhaps a timely reminder that even where serious misconduct is proved, a dismissal is not automatically within the range of reasonable responses (as some might think following the earlier rulings in Midland Bank v Madden) and that where an ET directs itself properly in law and reasons its judgment in a consistent manner with that direction, its decision will be difficult to overturn on appeal. Of the two rulings, Fuller is perhaps the more surprising because of the detailed reasons given by the disciplinary panel which appear to have reflected the employer's reasonable concerns in a sensitive environment. It is very unusual for an ET not to uphold a dismissal in these circumstances and it is perhaps surprising that the Court of Appeal did not attach more importance to the ET's failure to identify the manner in which the disciplinary investigation was defective.

A common thread running through both decisions is that the appellate tribunal should be slow to overturn to the "expert" judgment of the ET. As the Court points out this itself can involve the substitution of the Appellate body's view of the facts for that reasonably taken by the ET and that just as an ET should not substitute its view for that reasonably taken by an employer, so the EAT should not substitute its view for that reasonably taken by the ET. The difficult question is to decide when one or other oversteps the mark!

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 Topics
 
Related Articles
 
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions