Tribunal failed to give proper reasons for victimisation decision
In a case where an Employment Tribunal found that an employee had been unfairly dismissed and victimised, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has criticised the Tribunal for failing to make clear findings on the employer’s reasons for dismissal. The EAT decided that it was not apparent from the Tribunal’s judgment why it believed the employee had been dismissed because she had done a protected act rather than because of misconduct.
Ms Blake was a security guard at Leeds General Infirmary with more than 25 years’ service. While on a final written warning, she went on holiday without first getting the approval of her manager. She was disciplined by Leeds NHS Trust who dismissed her for gross misconduct.
Ms Blake complained to the Employment Tribunal that she had been unfairly dismissed and victimised by Leeds NHS Trust. She believed the real reason for her dismissal was her employer’s knowledge of protected acts she had carried out, namely assisting a colleague with a disability discrimination claim and an allegation that her employer had subjected her to sex discrimination. The Employment Tribunal upheld these claims and Leeds NHS Trust appealed to the EAT.
The EAT found that the Employment Tribunal had made mistakes in its handling of both the victimisation and unfair dismissal claims.
Regarding the victimisation claim, the EAT first considered whether the Tribunal had followed the correct steps in deciding if Ms Blake’s dismissal was because of a protected act. It noted that when deciding whether Leeds NHS Trust was motivated to dismiss Ms Blake because of the protected acts, the Tribunal should have carefully considered the “mental processes” of the disciplining officers. It was apparent that the Tribunal had failed to do this.
“There is a lack of finding and reasoning in the Employment Tribunal’s reasons concerning the ‘protected acts’ and the knowledge and beliefs…concerning them.” Employment Appeal Tribunal
The EAT then considered the Tribunal’s handling of the unfair dismissal claim and found that the Tribunal had made a number of errors. Chief among these was that the Tribunal had relied on its own version of the facts instead of ascertaining the view of Leeds NHS Trust, discussing it and deciding whether it was reasonable.
“On key issues in the case the Employment Tribunal appears to have adopted its own view without identifying the Respondent’s reasons and asking whether they were reasonable.” Employment Appeal Tribunal
The EAT allowed the appeal in relation to both the victimisation and unfair dismissal claims, which were remitted to a different Tribunal for fresh consideration.
CASE Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust v Blake, Employment Appeal Tribunal, 15 July 2015
Photograph: “Excluded” by Flikr user Markus Spiske used under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license