Where instant dismissal is justified
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE successful case of Eldridge Haulage Ltd is encouraging, but its lessons must be understood with care. The statements in this article are extracted from the written decision of the tribunal.
Eldridge are meat hauliers of London E16 and found that, during a power-strike blackout, a loaded lorry had been taken from their yard and stolen.
After several days the driver who was the last person known to have shifted the lorry in the yard admitted to the police that he had been approached by a stranger, asked to bring a loaded lorry out of the yard and had discussed details. But the driver said he had then refused to have any part in the scheme. He was taken to court, and remanded on bail on a charge of theft. The next day the firm phoned him and told him he was summarily dismissed, without giving any reason.
The driver claimed unfair dismissal to the tribunal, but asked for the hearing to be deferred until after the court case. He was acquitted.
Eldridge contended that, notwithstanding the court's not guilty verdict,, the driver's conduct was inConsistent with his duty to his employer. He had admitted keeping an appointmeat with a man who had approached him with an obviously dishonest intent, and did not report this until his statement to the police. Drivers were in a position of trust and confidence, and it would be harmful to their business if they continued to employ someone who had not acted entirely properly.
The tribunal accepted that the firm had established a reason for dismissal, which was a reason relating to conduct and was thus within the statutory list of acceptable reasons. They also accepted that in all the circumstances the firm had acted reasonably and was entitled to dismiss the driver summarily. All this illustrates the way a tribunal picks up the wording laid down in the Act. The driver's representative submitted that contrary to the Code of Practice he had been given neither a warning nor an opportunity to state his case and both these defects were contrary to the Code of Practice. That Code, it was argued, contained the guiding principles Which tribunals were required to apply in order to develop and maintain orderly procedures in industry and these were fundamentally inconsistent with summary, dismissal.
However, the tribunal had recourse to a decision of the National Industrial Relations Court : "The need for orderly procedures does not exclude procedures which, in exceptional cases, . provide for or permit of summary dismissal.
Whilst we do not say that in all circumstances the employee must be given an opportunity of stating his case, the only exception can be the case where there can be no explanation which could cause the employer to refrain from dismissing the employee ; this must be a very rare situation."
Rare case
The tribunal applied these principles and felt that this was one of those rare cases where the misconduct justified summary dismissal. Although the driver had been given no opportunity to explain himself to his employer, he had given an explanation to the police, who had passed this on to the employer. There seemed little more that the driver could or would have wished to add even if he had seen the employer.
The tribunal had to decide whether Eldridge's conduct was consistent with what a reasonable employer would have done in the circumstances, which is a very subjective matter within the individual minds of the three members of the tribunal.
Thus employers still retain the right of instant dismissal in exceptional circumstances where no explanation by the employee would stop the dismissal.