The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals ……………………………………………………………Policy News Journal
Unfair Dismissal: Procedure and Polkey 15 June 2016
Can a dismissal be found to be procedurally unfair without specifying the breach of procedure?
No, held the EAT in Express Medicals v O'Donnell .
The Claimant was the minority shareholder in a company. There were discussions with the majority shareholder to negotiate an exit, after a falling out between them, but he was dismissed while the process was still continuing. The employment tribunal noted that there was an "ongoing discussion and dialogue" but found the dismissal unfair because "no particular procedure" had been followed. The Respondent argued that this was a dismissal for some other substantial reason but neither party addressed the issue of whether the ACAS Code of Practice would apply, and nor did the employment tribunal make a finding on the point. In circumstances where there had already been some dialogue between the parties, it also failed to specify what further steps the Respondent ought to have taken.
It was a further error not to make a Polkey deduction where there had been a finding of fact that the relationship had "seriously deteriorated and could not necessarily be considered to remain tenable".
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin which provided the details of this case.
If an award to a claimant is made in an unfair dismissal case, it usually consists of two elements: a basic award and a compensatory award. The basic award is based on pay, age and years of service, and the compensatory award covers the financial loss relating to the dismissal. Both are subject to limits and potential deductions. One of the most common deductions to compensatory awards is called the Polkey deduction (or reduction) and it can occur when an employer has been found to have acted unfairly in dismissing an employee by failing to follow correct procedure.
Read more from Acas on understanding the Polkey deduction .
Back to Contents
Reinstatement after Unfair Dismissal 21 June 2016
Before making an order for reinstatement, does an employment tribunal have to be satisfied that reinstatement would be acceptable to both parties?
No, held the Supreme Court in McBride v Scottish Police Authority .
The Claimant was a fingerprint officer who had been involved in a notorious Scottish Criminal case which had led to a Detective, Shirley McKie, being charged and then acquitted of perjury concerning a contested fingerprint at a murder scene. The case had generated intense media and political criticism in Scotland. The Claimant was subsequently unfairly dismissed following a reorganisation. The employment tribunal ordered her reinstatement under s114 Employment Rights Act, but impliedly accepted that she would be employed in a non- court going role. The employer appealed on the basis that the Claimant would not accept such a restriction. The Supreme Court held that the only obligation under s114 was that a Claimant be restored to their contractual employment. On the facts it would be practicable to restrict the Claimant to non- court employment and there was no evidence such a restriction would be in breach of contract
A decision on very specific facts, but the judgment is a useful analysis of the principles of reinstatement and redeployment.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin which provided the details of this case.
cipp.org.uk
Page 86
of 588
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker