Re: Handed my notice in but now they are taking me to a disciplinary- Help needed
Reference post #28
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT...4_06_1201.html
Abbey National v Fairbrother PLC
33. In either event, the employer evidently has a duty to act reasonably but what does that mean? We have no difficulty in holding that that requires recognition of the fact that employers are afforded a measure of discretion in their conduct of their relationship with their employees. In particular, we are satisfied that they have a measure of discretion when deciding how to conduct a disciplinary procedure and in deciding how to conduct a grievance procedure. That is evident from the reference to "reasonable and proper cause" in the formulation of the implied term and in the statutory requirement that they act reasonably in their response to whatever section 98(1) or (2) reason applies. It means that they must not act irrationally or perversely in the course of such procedures. They must not take account of irrelevant material. They must not fail to take account of relevant material. They must not take decisions that no reasonable employer would take. The analysis in Clark v Nomura International plcis helpful in that regard.
Reference post #28
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT...4_06_1201.html
Abbey National v Fairbrother PLC
- It is evident that questions of reasonableness arise in a constructive dismissal claim at the outset, when deciding whether or not the employee has been dismissed at all, since the section 94 right does not fall to be considered unless dismissal is established under section 95. That means that the implied term requires to be examined. It is set out in Malik. We find the passage at the end of Lord Steyn's speech, under the heading "THE EFFECT OF MY CONCLUSIONS", to be of considerable assistance:What is stressed there that has, perhaps, sometimes been overlooked, is that conduct calculated to destroy or seriously damage the trust and confidence inherent in the employer/employee relationship may not amount to a breach of the implied term; it will not do so if the employer had reasonable and proper cause for the conduct in question. Accordingly, the questions that require to be asked in a constructive dismissal case appear to us to be:"Earlier, I drew attention to the fact that the implied mutual obligation of trust and confidence applies only where there is 'no reasonable and proper cause' for the employer's conduct and then only if the conduct is calculated to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence. That circumscribes the potential reach and scope of the obligation."1. what was the conduct of the employer that is complained of?2. did the employer have reasonable and proper cause for that conduct?If he did have such cause, then that is an end of it. The employee cannot claim that he has been constructively dismissed. If the employer did not have such cause, then a third question arises:3. was the conduct complained of calculated to destroy or seriously damage the employer/employee relationship of trust and confidence?
- In a straightforward unfair dismissal case, questions of reasonableness will not normally arise at the stage of determining whether or not the employee was dismissed. That is a question of fact, to be determined objectively on the evidence of what actually happened between the employer and employee. When, however, it comes to assessing whether or not, in dismissing an employee, the employer acted fairly, questions of reasonableness will then arise: section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act provides that the resolution of that issue will depend on whether or not the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating the reason he dismissed the employee as a sufficient reason. His conduct towards the employee will, at that stage, be subjected to a reasonableness test.
- However, we note that, although the point at which reasonableness considerations arise differs as between the two types of case, the point which is being addressed seems to be the same. It is that of whether or not, when conducting himself towards his employee in a manner which has resulted in the detriment of his job coming to an end, the employer had reasonable and proper cause for his conduct.
33. In either event, the employer evidently has a duty to act reasonably but what does that mean? We have no difficulty in holding that that requires recognition of the fact that employers are afforded a measure of discretion in their conduct of their relationship with their employees. In particular, we are satisfied that they have a measure of discretion when deciding how to conduct a disciplinary procedure and in deciding how to conduct a grievance procedure. That is evident from the reference to "reasonable and proper cause" in the formulation of the implied term and in the statutory requirement that they act reasonably in their response to whatever section 98(1) or (2) reason applies. It means that they must not act irrationally or perversely in the course of such procedures. They must not take account of irrelevant material. They must not fail to take account of relevant material. They must not take decisions that no reasonable employer would take. The analysis in Clark v Nomura International plcis helpful in that regard.
Comment