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.

Strife in the Workplace and Reasonable Adjustments – Guideline Ruling

Many employers behave creditably when coping with serious breakdowns in working relationships. As a guideline Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, however, in such situations it is vital to pay very particular attention to the position of disabled employees whose mental health may be at stake. The case concerned a woman who suffered from anxiety and depression which it was agreed amounted to a disability. Following her resignation, she launched ET proceedings against her NHS trust employer,…

Treating Every Employee in the Same Way May Itself Be Discriminatory

Anti-discrimination laws are often viewed as requiring employers to treat all their staff in the same way. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling made plain, the positive duty to make reasonable adjustments to cater for disabled workers’ needs may require them to be treated more favourably than their colleagues. The case concerned a quality controller in a food packing plant who was disabled by back pain and depression. He worked 12-hour night shifts in the refrigerated plant and was on…

Whistleblowing and the Importance of Proving Motive – Guideline Ruling

Establishing that an employee has made a protected disclosure is the first step on the path to success in any whistleblowing claim. However, as a case concerning a dismissed care homes manager showed, it is often much harder to prove that detrimental treatment is motivated by such a disclosure. The woman had been in post for only about six months when she was dismissed at the end of her probationary period. Her employer asserted that she was dismissed on grounds of capability or performance.…