Author: Kiril Moskovchuk
Published: November 14, 2018
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 3 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.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal approved finding of unfair dismissal resulting from failure of the employer to postpone a disciplinary hearing in a recent case of Talon Engineering Ltd v Smith UKEAT/0236/17/BA.
In this case, the employer was dismissed for gross misconduct, which included sending email with unprofessional content referring to a colleague as a ‘knob’ and a ‘knob head’.
Both Tribunals agreed that sending such emails would indeed constitute gross misconduct. The difficulty, proved insurmountable, the employer faced in persuading the Tribunals that the dismissal was fair was its refusal to postpone the adjourned disciplinary hearing.
The employee had a trade union companion. The companion of her choice was not able to attend the reconvened disciplinary meeting within five days and she asked for the meeting to be postponed. The employer refused.
The Tribunals found that the refusal to postpone resulted in procedural unfairness. Even though it was accepted the employer did not breach the right to be accompanied and from the substantive perspective it was a case of gross misconduct, the refusal to postpone was fundamentally flawed and the dismissal was found unfair.