REWARD
Fair and unfair dismissal
NicolaMullineux, senior employment specialist for Peninsula , reviews the decisions in three cases centred on dismissals, highlighting how important it is for employers to act fairly
Moore v Phoenix Product Development Ltd
The ET rejected the claim, noting that the irreparable breakdown in his relationship with the company meant that he was dismissed for some other substantial reason (SOSR), and thus the dismissal was not unfair. The claimant appealed this decision to the EAT, on the following grounds: ● the ET had failed to reach a reasoned determination as to whether the dismissal was fair ● the ET erred in its application of relevant case law by finding that the respondent not offering an appeal did not make the dismissal unfair ● the ET erred by assuming that he would not have appealed his dismissal if he had been offered the opportunity ● the ET had failed to establish the correct facts and/or apply the correct burden of proof in finding that the claimant was 100% culpable for his own dismissal; and ● the ET’s reasons for dismissing the claim were inadequate.
The EAT upheld the ET’s decision that the claimant was fairly dismissed, despite not being given a right to appeal. The EAT found that an appeal would have been futile in these circumstances and that it was not, in fact, necessary for the respondent to stipulate that there was a right to appeal. Turning to each of the claimant’s grounds for appeal, the EAT held that the ET had not erred in its application of the law. Specifically, on the first ground, the EAT noted that the ET was right to find that the dismissal was fair because the respondent was left with little to no choice but to dismiss due to the claimant’s inability to ‘let go of the reins’ after stepping down as CEO. On the third ground, the EAT decided that this was a conclusion that the ET was entitled to reach. D’Silva v Croydon Health Services The ET has decided that a National Health Service (NHS) receptionist, who was dismissed after telling her employer that she was scared to work in a public-facing role, was unfairly dismissed. The claimant, who suffered from a stress-and-anxiety-induced disability,
The employment appeal tribunal (EAT) has held that a claimant was not unfairly dismissed from the company he founded after not being offered the opportunity to appeal. The claimant is the inventor of a water- efficient toilet. He was the chief executive officer (CEO) of the respondent, Phoenix Product Development Limited, for sixteen years until he stepped down in 2017, staying on as a director and employee of the company. Although the claimant was no longer CEO, he was unable to accept that he no longer had significant control over the company’s affairs. He was later dismissed without appeal due to an irretrievable breakdown in relationships. Bringing a claim to the employment tribunal (ET), the claimant argued that his dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair.
...the respondent was left with little to no choice but to dismiss due to the claimant’s inability to ‘let go of the reins’ after stepping down as CEO.
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward | November 2021 | Issue 75 32
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker