Considering past misconduct of an Employee

legal_updates

The employee had received a written warning for failing to obey reasonable management instruction.

Author: Dennis Chapman
Published:
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 7 years old.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

In a recent case Employment Appeal Tribunal the panel were asked to consider whether an employee’s previous warnings for misconduct, could be considered should a further act of misconduct be committed.

The employee had received a written warning for failing to obey reasonable management instruction. Within the same timeframe, the employee was again called in for a disciplinary for a severe breach of health and safety as they drove a lorry through a red light in a loading bay. Due to the nature of this action, coupled with the fact that a previous disciplinary for misconduct had been issued, the employee felt that the employee could be dismissed for gross misconduct.

The employee took the matter to a Tribunal claiming that the Employer had acted unfairly as they should not have considered the previous decision as it was not a related issue, in this later disciplinary sanction. The employer agreed that they would have, if the second incident had been a standalone offence, only issued a final written warning, however this was elevated to instant dismissal due to the previous conduct of the employee.

The Tribunal sided with the Employee as the two incidents were not connected and as such should not be viewed together. This was appealed by the employer who overturned the ET’s decision and stated that this was not an issue of similarity. It referred to the ACAS Code of Practice and stated that it does not require similarity of offences to justify the dismissal. Further the EAT ruled that previous disciplinary action should only be disregarded if it has been issued incorrectly (i.e. incorrect procedure has been followed), or issued in bad faith (without merit).

Dennis Chapman

In remembrance of Dennis Chapman 1951 -2015

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.