Should a Tribunal strike out an unfair dismissal claim where the Claimant has no prospect of recovering any compensation but where the dismissal may be procedurally unfair? The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that it should not, in this case.
Should a Tribunal strike out an unfair dismissal claim where the Claimant has no prospect of recovering any compensation but where the dismissal may be procedurally unfair? The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that it should not, in the case of Evans v The London Borough of Brent.
Dr Evans was a deputy head teacher of a school and was dismissed for gross misconduct relating to his receipt of bonuses which were impermissible under teachers’ standard terms and conditions. Prior to his dismissal, he had asked for the disciplinary hearing to be postponed so that his choice of companion (his sister) could attend and to give him more time to review documents and prepare. This request was refused and the disciplinary hearing went ahead in his absence. He was dismissed and claimed that his dismissal was unfair.
The Tribunal proceeding were initially stayed pending criminal proceedings. Subsequent High Court proceedings to seek to recover the bonuses paid to Dr Evans (and others) were then initiated and the Tribunal proceedings were again stayed pending the outcome. The High Court was satisfied that Dr Evans had received £250,000 in overpayments (albeit that over £200,000 of these overpayments were time barred and could not be recovered).
The Tribunal, bound by the findings of the High Court, was satisfied that there could be no doubt that the employer had a reasonable belief in misconduct, and that there were reasonable grounds for that belief. The Tribunal was also satisfied that there were no grounds for suggesting that dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses open to the employer. It could not, however, accept that there was no possibility of the dismissal being unfair due to potential procedural concerns relating to the disciplinary hearing.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the Claimant would have been dismissed in any event, and further than he would recover no remedy from the Tribunal proceedings, bearing in mind that there was no possibility of the employer recovering over £200,000 of overpayments made to him. A Tribunal award would not be just and equitable in those circumstances; further, it was unlikely that any reduction for the Claimant’s contribution to his dismissal would be less than 100%.
The Tribunal decided to strike out the Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim, finding that the Claimant had no prospects of any recovery as a result of his claim and that the interests of justice (including the judicial resources and the cost to the public funds of Brent) did not warrant it continuing. The EAT disagreed with this approach.
The EAT held that it could not be said that there was no value to the Claimant in a finding of unfair dismissal, even one simply decided on procedural grounds. As the Tribunal had been unable to conclude that the claim of procedural unfair dismissal had no prospects, this did not provide grounds to strike out the claim. As to the Tribunal’s wider discretion and its concerns about the use of judicial resources and costs, the EAT did not believe these concerns to be justified – the only element of the unfair dismissal claim which would continue related to the procedural unfairness point (and not the substantive reasons for dismissal which remained struck out) and this issue would not incur a significant amount of judicial resources or costs.
The decision to dismiss the Claimant was taken back in 2009. Over 10 years later, the matter will once again return to the Tribunal to consider the issue of procedural fairness, despite the Tribunal being satisfied that the employer had good grounds to dismiss the Claimant, there being no possibility of the Claimant clearing his name, and there being no real prospect of him recovering any compensation as a result – such is the importance of procedural fairness.
Whilst the vast majority of the delays in this case were attributable to the criminal and then civil proceedings, Tribunal proceedings and related EAT proceedings will no doubt have already incurred significant time and costs for all involved. It may not have been possible to avoid these (given that the Claimant may have decided to bring a claim in any circumstances), and it may of course be the case that the dismissal will be found to be procedurally fair in any event, but an irrefutably fair procedure would have given the employer stronger strike out arguments (as well as potential grounds for costs).
Official statistics show that 15,336 claims which included a complaint of age discrimination were received at the Employment Tribunals between March 2020 and March 2021.
The outcome of the Employment Tribunal claim brought by Gulnaz Raja against Starling Bank Limited (1) (Starling), and Matthew Newman (2) was reported last month.
In the Autumn Statement delivered on 17 November, rises to the National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage rates were announced, to take effect from 1 April 2023.
The World Cup kicks off in Qatar on Sunday 20 November 2022, with the final taking place on Sunday 18 December 2022. Undoubtedly, this is a huge sporting event, and many employees will be keen to show their support for their favourite teams. However, due to the time difference, start times for the matches are between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. UK time, which could have an impact on employers if employees who wish to watch the matches are scheduled to work.
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
Where an employee appeals against their dismissal under a contractual appeal procedure and their appeal is successful, reinstatement to their previous role is automatic and does not require approval or agreement from the employee.
Settlement agreements in an employment context are ordinarily used to provide both parties with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship – but what happens when there is alleged discrimination after entering into a settlement agreement?
A few weeks ago we brought you news that following the Government’s mini-budget it was confirmed that the off-payroll working rules (known as “IR35”) put in place for public and private sector businesses from 2017 and 2021 would be scrapped from April 2023.
In Mogane v Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether it was fair to dismiss a nurse as redundant on the basis that that her fixed-term contract was due to expire before that of her colleague.
The majority of people do not feel the need to embellish their CV to get that coveted position and move on up the career ladder. Their worthiness and benefit to the hiring organisation are easily demonstrated through the recruitment process – application, psychometric testing, selection day or interview.
In July 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited Judgement in the case of Harpur Trust v Brazel relating to the correct calculation of statutory holiday pay for part year workers. This decision has implications for all part year workers on contracts which subsist all year round, whether their hours are normal or irregular.
The Government has announced a change to the categorisation of “small” businesses to reduce the amount of regulatory compliance (or “red tape”) required. Currently, SMEs (those with fewer than 250 employees) are exempt from certain regulations – such as the obligation to comply with gender pay reporting. With effect from 3 October, these exemptions will be widened to apply to businesses with fewer than 500 employees.
In University of Dundee v Chakraborty, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether a first draft of a grievance report could retrospectively be deemed to be privileged.
The Chancellor’s recent mini-budget provided a significant announcement for business as it was confirmed that the off-payroll working rules (known as “IR35”) put in place for public and private sector businesses from 2017 and 2021 will be scrapped from April 2023.
The Government has published the Retained EU Revocation and Reform Bill which, if passed, provides for the revocation of all “EU-derived subordinate legislation” (i.e. UK statutory instruments which were introduced to implement EU law) and retained direct EU legislation on 31 December 2023, unless legislation is specifically introduced to save them.
On 20 July 2022, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited judgment in the case of Harpur Trust v Brazel, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal. For those of you familiar with this case, you will know that it concerns the statutory leave requirements for part-time and part-year workers. For schools and academies whose workforce consists of a variety of types of part-time and part-year workers, this case is one that must be understood before any changes are applied. Come and join Emma Hughes, Head of HR Services as she puts questions to Ian Deakin, Employment Partner, and Sarah Linden, Senior Associate.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s recent decision in the case of Mr Michael Cowie & Others v Scottish Fire and Rescue Service provides a useful insight into favourable - or unfavourable - treatment in the context of discrimination claims.
This month, HM Treasury issued a consultation on Administrative Control Process for Public Sector Exits with draft guidance. They’re proposing to introduce an expanded approvals process for employee exits and special severance payments, and additional reporting requirements. If approved, the proposals will impact public sector bodies and those that do not have a specific right to make exit payments.
In Wierowska v HC-One Oval Limited, the Employment Tribunal had to determine whether the Claimant’s beliefs in relation to Covid-19 vaccines amounted to religious beliefs for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.
Janice Walsh applied for a job with Domino’s Pizza, hoping to secure a role as a Delivery Driver. However things quickly took a turn for the worse during her initial interview, with the very first question that she was asked relating to her age. Ms Walsh was ultimately informed that she had not been successful in her application.
As of 21 July, two separate pieces of legislation came into force which seeks to mitigate against strike action. It should come as no surprise that this is a direct response to the rail strikes, which have dominated the news in the last couple of months.