Employers who want to treat employees, who guilty of, essentially, the same offence, differently need to take note of two cases.
General Mills (Berwick) Limited v Glovaki
An employee (S) breached health and safety procedures and as a result, suffered serious injuries.
S was unable to work or participate in disciplinary proceedings. He was eventually dismissed on ill health grounds (capability) following medical advice that he would never be able to return to his job.
Subsequently, another employee (G) was guilty of similar behaviour as S but he was not injured. G was dismissed for gross misconduct. G claimed it was unfair because S had not been dismissed for gross misconduct. The Tribunal decided G’s dismissal was unfair. On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) disagreed and overturned the Tribunal’s decision that G’s dismissal was unfair.
The question was whether a reasonable employer would have taken the same decision to treat G differently to S. Given the Tribunal’s finding that S would have been dismissed if he had not been too ill to work or attend a disciplinary hearing, the dismissal of G was, in the EAT’s judgment, fair.
Conversely, in First Glasgow Limited v Robertson the outcome was different.
A Bus Driver (R) interfered with a CCTV camera in the driver’s cab. R had already received a final written warning earlier the same year in relation to a different matter. R was dismissed for gross misconduct.
Two other Drivers, who had also been found guilty of interfering with CCTV cameras in their cabs, received final warnings. In dismissing R, his employer placed no reliance on the live final written warning (a bit stupid!).
The Tribunal found that R’s dismissal was unfair because he had been treated more harshly than the other Drivers who had been found guilty of the same misconduct. The employer appealed against the decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). In relation to this aspect of the appeal, the EAT’s Judgment reads “We can deal with the..(appeal)..briefly. It is not well founded”. The EAT went on to say that, had the live final warning been taken into account by the employer, it might have made the different treatment reasonable and the dismissal fair, but they had not and so it was not. A lack of consideration of the live final warning meant that there was no reason for R to be dismissed when other employees, who had been found guilty of the same misconduct, were not. His dismissal was, therefore, unfair.0
Anthony has been on the books of Wote Street People, a recruitment agency in Basingstoke, for over 12 years. We’ve placed him in temporary jobs, permanent jobs, and he’s found jobs himself…but he always comes back to us. By telling his story, we hope other candidates will be able to see how much we invest[…..]
As mentioned in our previous blog, there is currently a widespread candidate shortage and we need your help to match the right people to the right jobs. What has a candidate shortage got to do with me? Worker shortages will affect everyone at a personal, local and national level. The pandemic and people self-isolating proved[…..]
Why did the chicken cross the road? There wasn’t a lorry driver available to give it a lift. You’ve probably heard the news reports of a partial closure of the restaurant chain Nando’s and fewer dishes on the menu at KFC. Turkey might be off the menu for some this Christmas too because of a[…..]
3 ways working with a trusted recruitment agency can help minimise your candidate shortage dilemma. Wote Street People contributes data to The Jobs Report, issued monthly industry by KMPG & REC. Last month’s findings made for interesting reading for HR Managers and Directors currently trying to recruit new staff. Here’s a few snippets: Job vacancies[…..]
The way you register with a recruitment agency may have changed since the pandemic. But one thing sure hasn’t – don’t send us your CV in the first instance. Just pick up the phone and call us! But before you do that… there is some prep you need to do yourself. You spend much of[…..]