Employers – Ignoring the Acas Code is Like Shooting Yourself in the Foot

Ignoring the Acas Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures is, in employment law terms, equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot. The point was made by an Employment Tribunal (ET) in the case of a payroll clerk who was afforded no procedural safeguards before his boss sacked him on the…

Jul 27, 2023

Pexels pixabay 357514 1024x683

Ignoring the Acas Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures is, in employment law terms, equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot. The point was made by an Employment Tribunal (ET) in the case of a payroll clerk who was afforded no procedural safeguards before his boss sacked him on the spot.

A director of the company for which the man worked accused him of throwing down some files on the floor. He denied the allegation but the director informed him that, if he was going to behave like that, he could take his things and go and find another job. The director sent him an email the following day, confirming his dismissal on grounds of alleged gross misconduct.

After the man launched ET proceedings, the director asserted that his dismissal was the culmination of various forms of misconduct – including rudeness to customers, poor timekeeping and swearing at a colleague – in which he had engaged for at least two years. The incident involving the files was, he said, the final straw.

Ruling on the matter, the ET found that the director had spoken to him once after he referred to a customer as stupid but had otherwise taken no action in respect of his past behaviour. That indicated that he did not consider his conduct unacceptable or a matter warranting dismissal. He genuinely believed that the man had thrown down the files and that this constituted an act of misconduct. There having been no investigation, however, that belief was not held on reasonable grounds.

The director was aware of the Acas Code but the ET found that he had ignored it. He did not follow it because he did not want to. The man had received no previous written warnings and he was not afforded an appeal hearing. He had no opportunity to defend himself and no reasonable employer would have dismissed him without even speaking to him about what he was alleged to have done wrong.

Given his 10 years’ service with the company, his dismissal in response to the files incident was not in any event a sanction within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer. The ET upheld the man’s complaints of unfair and wrongful dismissal and awarded him a total of £10,384 in compensation.

Financial Consultant Who Failed to Disclose Bankruptcy Fairly Dismissed

You would generally be right to think that what goes on in your life away from your workplace is nobody’s business but your own. In one case, however, a financial consultant’s failure to disclose his bankruptcy to his employer was ruled by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) to be a sufficient ground for dismissal. The man, who worked for an estate agency, was suffering financial difficulties after prolonged periods on sick leave and was declared bankrupt at his own behest. His bankruptcy came…

Hotel Owner Ruled Liable Following Guest’s Fatal Fall from Window

Property occupiers are obliged to take reasonable care for the safety of their visitors, but does that duty extend to those who choose to take obvious risks? The Court of Appeal addressed that issue in a guideline case concerning a hotel guest who fell out of a window to his death. The man was staying on the hotel’s second floor after attending a wedding when he fell nine metres from the sash window in the early hours of the morning. His widow sought compensation from the hotel’s owner under…

Discrimination and the Burden of Proof – Supreme Court Clarifies the Law

Ever since a crucial alteration was made to the wording of the Equality Act 2010, the question of where the burden of proof lies in employment discrimination cases has been the focus of intense legal debate. An important Supreme Court ruling has, however, resolved the issue once and for all. The case concerned a postman who was born in Nigeria and identified as black African and Nigerian. He had qualifications in computing and wished to obtain a managerial or technical role within Royal Mail.…