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
‘Self-care’ has become a term often spoken of and written about – but what does it really mean? Me-time and meditation? Bubble baths and beauty sleep? Yoga and yogurt? As lovely and relaxing as all that sounds, self-care can also be about ACTION. More to the point, self-care can be about self-investment. How you[…..]
Sexual Assault has been headlines in the news on too many occasions in the last few weeks. What worries me are the messages we are conveying to our loved ones and employees about consent? Are we communicating what sex is really about? It is about building a relationship with the person we love and then[…..]
Why do we love working in a recruitment agency? Let us count the ways! At the top of the list is helping Basingstoke people find a way to earn a living doing what they love. You might have heard the Harvey Mackay quote that goes, “Find something you love to do, and you’ll never have[…..]
We’ve seen a gradual increased presence of robots on manufacturing factory floors, and industries that have embraced automation have seen an increase in efficiency and productivity. There is a key concern amongst employees that the rise of robots will ensure the human worker extinct. This concern is mostly unfounded and is a result of the[…..]
As someone who has employed and trained hundreds of apprentices and supported many more into apprenticeship roles I am totally biased and a complete believer in how powerful they can be for a business, to me it is a business no brainer! When deciding whether apprenticeships will work for your business it is critically important[…..]