The research also found that:
almost half of customers decided to involve Acas because conciliation had proved useful in the past seven out of ten organisations using conciliation were from the private sector (69 per cent) with 24 per cent in the public sector and 6 per cent in the voluntary sector. In the last financial year 2011-12, Acas' collective conciliation service was requested in nearly 1,000 disputes, including those at Vivergo, Cammell Laird, JobCentre Plus and London Underground.
A few months ago Acas helped resolve the dispute between Unite and the main petrol distributors in the high profile fuel dispute.
Read more from Acas
DISMISSAL INVOLVING ACCUMULATED WARNINGS
28 November 2012
When considering the fairness of a dismissal based on accumulated disciplinary warnings, may a tribunal look behind earlier warnings?
No, says the EAT in Wincanton Group v Stone , unless satisfied that an earlier warning was issued in bad faith or was manifestly inappropriate.
Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin reports:
The Claimant (a lorry driver) was dismissed for misconduct after a serious driving accident, on the back of a written warning for different misconduct. The employment tribunal found the dismissal unfair, having considered that the Claimant challenged the earlier warning (here by a tribunal claim) and how it arose, although that warning was found to be valid. The EAT (Employment Appeal Tribunal) overturned the finding of unfair dismissal, remitting the case for re-hearing and set out guidance for tribunals dealing with dismissals involving accumulated warnings ( paragraph 37 ). The overall question is the reasonableness of the employer's act of treating conduct as a reason for dismissal under Section 98(4) ERA, and tribunals should: take into account the fact of an earlier warning; take into account any proceedings that may affect the validity of a warning (usually an internal appeal), and consider what weight the employer gave to any challenge before dismissing; avoid "going behind" an earlier warning by considering its validity, unless satisfied that to do so is appropriate. But tribunals are not "going behind" a warning by taking into account the factual circumstances that gave rise to it, e.g. considering whether the types of conduct giving rise to an earlier warning and ultimate dismissal were similar or not, and tribunals may consider the particular features of a situation, as well as the consistency of the employer's approach.
COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCY PERIOD TO BE REDUCED TO 45 DAYS
18 December 2012
CIPP Policy News Journal
12/04/2013, Page 322 of 362
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker