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.

A Fair Redundancy Process Requires Consultation at a Formative Stage

A fair redundancy process requires consultation of affected employees at a formative stage when there is at least the potential for them to influence the outcome. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) succinctly made that point in finding that a recruitment consultant in the banking sector was unfairly dismissed. The man’s employer, part of an American-owned group, experienced a downturn in business due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A decision was taken that redundancies were required amongst…

Use of Similar Fact Evidence in Employment Proceedings – Guideline Ruling

In a criminal context, prosecutors often rely on similar fact evidence in order to show that a defendant has a propensity to behave in a particular way – but can such evidence also be deployed in employment proceedings? The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) focused on that issue in a guideline case. The case concerned an energy broker who complained to an Employment Tribunal (ET) that unlawful deductions had been made from her wages in that she had not been paid all commissions due to her. She…

Offering Internships? You May Have to Pay the National Minimum Wage

Employers who offer unpaid internships often feel that they are acting benevolently in giving inexperienced people a chance to learn the ropes. However, many interns have a legal right to be paid the National Minimum Wage (NMW) and, as one case showed, a failure to remunerate them accordingly can have grave consequences. The case concerned two former unpaid interns at an online publishing company who complained to HM Revenue and Customs that they had not been paid the NMW. An investigation…