Lund v St Edmunds School
Employers should never be too far away from their copy of the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.
Apply the Code whenever there's a disciplinary or grievance issue at work, and even in some situations which the Code isn't expressly said to cover - "some other substantial reason" dismissals, for example. That's the message from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) which has considered the Code's wider application. It's important, because if an employer fails to comply with the Acas Code, then compensation can be increased by up to 25%.
The case involved Mr Lund who was dismissed after the school he worked in lost confidence in him. He'd had problems using computer equipment and was said to have alienated his colleagues and affected morale. A tribunal found that his dismissal was for "some other substantial reason", but it was procedurally unfair because Mr Lund hadn't been warned that he might be dismissed, nor had he had a chance to appeal. It was also substantively unfair because the school hadn't properly addressed the problems Mr Lund was having with the computer system.
Questions for the EAT were: did the Acas Code apply to a "some other substantial reason" dismissal, and was the tribunal right not to increase Mr Lund's compensation to reflect the school's breach of it? The answers were yes, and no.
Even though Mr Lund wasn't dismissed for conduct - which would clearly have required compliance with the Code - it was his conduct which had led to the school contemplating a ("some other substantial reason") dismissal, and so the Code should have been followed. Because the school had failed to do this, Mr Lund's compensation should have been increased.
Employers should never be too far away from their copy of the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.
Apply the Code whenever there's a disciplinary or grievance issue at work, and even in some situations which the Code isn't expressly said to cover - "some other substantial reason" dismissals, for example. That's the message from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) which has considered the Code's wider application. It's important, because if an employer fails to comply with the Acas Code, then compensation can be increased by up to 25%.
The case involved Mr Lund who was dismissed after the school he worked in lost confidence in him. He'd had problems using computer equipment and was said to have alienated his colleagues and affected morale. A tribunal found that his dismissal was for "some other substantial reason", but it was procedurally unfair because Mr Lund hadn't been warned that he might be dismissed, nor had he had a chance to appeal. It was also substantively unfair because the school hadn't properly addressed the problems Mr Lund was having with the computer system.
Questions for the EAT were: did the Acas Code apply to a "some other substantial reason" dismissal, and was the tribunal right not to increase Mr Lund's compensation to reflect the school's breach of it? The answers were yes, and no.
Even though Mr Lund wasn't dismissed for conduct - which would clearly have required compliance with the Code - it was his conduct which had led to the school contemplating a ("some other substantial reason") dismissal, and so the Code should have been followed. Because the school had failed to do this, Mr Lund's compensation should have been increased.
No comments:
Post a Comment