In this month’s bulletin, we explore three recent cases. The first two cases remind employers of the Tribunal’s “in the round” approach to determining whether a dismissal is unfair and the third case is another development in the case law on personal liability for those who are involved in dismissing whistleblowers. There is also a useful lesson to those who use scripts for disciplinary hearings.
In Alom v Financial Conduct Authority, the EAT reminded employers that the test for unfair dismissal is whether a dismissal falls within a range of reasonable responses, with this range applying to the procedure that is adopted as well as the substantive decision.
The Claimant was dismissed for sending an anonymous email to a colleague that was found to be harassment. He denied sending the email, but did accept that if he had sent it, it would have amounted to gross misconduct.
The Tribunal found that it was a decision open to the employer to find that the Claimant had sent the email and that a decision to dismiss was reasonable, notwithstanding some minor procedural issues.
The Claimant appealed on a number of grounds, and in particular in respect of procedural failings by the employer. The EAT did not uphold his appeal:
[OSEN=Jang Woo-young Reporter] Amid repeated denials from actor Park Si-hoo’s side regarding allegations of facilitating an affair, a close associate also emphasized that the claims are “baseless”...