Bancroft v Interserve
It's long been the case that where a third party - a client, supplier or customer, for example - requires an employer to dismiss an employee, this can be potentially fair as "some other substantial reason". But does an employer have to be satisfied that the request is justified? Not always, but it is a factor, says the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
Mr Bancroft was employed by Interserve as a chef at a bail hostel which was contracted to provide catering services to the Home Office. The contract allowed the Home Office to require the removal of contractor staff without giving reasons.
Mr Bancroft had a difficult relationship with his manager who eventually wrote to the Home Office requesting that Mr Bancroft be dismissed. The Home Office replied asking for a permanent solution to be put in place and Mr Bancroft was suspended.
Interserve didn't try to persuade the Home Office to change its mind but it did offer Mr Bancroft another job, which he rejected. He was eventually dismissed and claimed unfair dismissal.
The tribunal found against him; Interserve had done everything it reasonably could. But the EAT disagreed. Injustice to the employee, and the extent of that injustice, is an important factor in the fairness of a dismissal. The tribunal should have taken into account the fact that Interserve had not considered the difficult relationship between Mr Bancroft and his manager.
The case was sent back to the tribunal to make all findings of fact and to then decide whether the dismissal was fair or not.
It's long been the case that where a third party - a client, supplier or customer, for example - requires an employer to dismiss an employee, this can be potentially fair as "some other substantial reason". But does an employer have to be satisfied that the request is justified? Not always, but it is a factor, says the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
Mr Bancroft was employed by Interserve as a chef at a bail hostel which was contracted to provide catering services to the Home Office. The contract allowed the Home Office to require the removal of contractor staff without giving reasons.
Mr Bancroft had a difficult relationship with his manager who eventually wrote to the Home Office requesting that Mr Bancroft be dismissed. The Home Office replied asking for a permanent solution to be put in place and Mr Bancroft was suspended.
Interserve didn't try to persuade the Home Office to change its mind but it did offer Mr Bancroft another job, which he rejected. He was eventually dismissed and claimed unfair dismissal.
The tribunal found against him; Interserve had done everything it reasonably could. But the EAT disagreed. Injustice to the employee, and the extent of that injustice, is an important factor in the fairness of a dismissal. The tribunal should have taken into account the fact that Interserve had not considered the difficult relationship between Mr Bancroft and his manager.
The case was sent back to the tribunal to make all findings of fact and to then decide whether the dismissal was fair or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment