AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Common sense dismissals

22nd October 1976
Page 31
Page 31, 22nd October 1976 — Common sense dismissals
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Mr Jonathon Lawton rightly stressed at CM's Fleet Management Conference (CM October 8) that warnings of disciplinary action, particularly possible dismissal, should he recorded.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in recent judgments, has tilted the balance in the direction of what most employers would term common sense.

In the appeal case Ferodo Ltd v Barnes, the EAT reversed the decision of Manchester Industrial Tribunal who had found that Mr Barnes'

dismissal for an act of vandalism in the toilets of the company's factory was unfair because the employers had failed to prove to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that Mr Barnes had committed the offence for which he was sacked.

The EAT said the relevant question for the Tribunal was: "Are we satisfied that the employers had, at the time of the dismissal, reasonable grounds for believing that the offence put against the application was in fact committed?" In other words, the state of the evidence and information at the time of the dismissal is significant.

In the EAT appeal case: Charles Letts and Company v Howard the principle established was that the onus of proof is on the employer to show that unfair procedure made no difference to the decision to terminate em

p ylo ment

Mr Howard was dismissed supplied).

when, after returning from a business appointment under the influence of drink, he caused a scene, abusing his manager in the presence of other employees An Industrial Tribunal held that though the company had grounds for dismissing Mr Howard they had acted unreasonably in not giving him a a chance to explain or apologise.

On appeal — I quote from a summary in Industrial Relations Review and Report) — the EAT noted that ''as a matter of law, where there has been . . . an unfairness of the procedure leading to the dismissal, the onus lies upon the employers, if they seek to establish the point, to satisfy the Industrial Tribunal that even if the proper, fair procedure had been carried through it would have made no difference to the result.

The EAT stressed that in cases where drink or a sudden loss of temper leads to a scene, the manager weighing the pros and cons of lenience or dismissal should give the employee "every opportunity and encouragement to climb off his high horse and to apologise, so that matters can be put right before it is too late."

In the EAT case of Loundes v Specialist Heavy Engineering Ltd, Mr Loundes was

dismissed for incompetence following a series of five serious and costly errors in his work. He had never received a written warning that he would have to be dismissed if his performance did not improve, nor had he been given a chance to answer complaints against him or be represented before being dismissed.

In dismissing Mr Loundes' appeal, the EAT stressed that "No doubt, as a general rule, a failure to follow a fair procedure, whether by warnings or by giving an opportunity to be heard before dismissal, will result in the ensuing cli.smissal being found to be unfatr." But it would not be right to say that the dismissal will always be unfair. In the case of Mr Loundes, "the circumstances . . . were so egregious that dismissal was justified, despite the failure in procedure, and no injustice was done." "PLAYFAIR"

(Name and address


comments powered by Disqus