Rustamova v Calder High School

An Employment Tribunal must give sufficient reasons to show how it resolved the issues before it. In an unfair dismissal case involving several allegations, it should analyse the charges, the evidence and the conclusions reached. A bare statement that the employer’s view was reasonable is insufficient.

In considering sanction, the Tribunal must analyse the employer’s reasons for treating the conduct as gross misconduct and for deciding that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. Submissions made by a representative may be taken into account, but they are matters of weight and do not replace the Tribunal’s own reasoned analysis.

A teacher was summarily dismissed after her employer found six allegations of professional misconduct proved. The Employment Tribunal, by a majority of its lay members, held that the dismissal was fair; the Employment Judge dissented.

The teacher appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on four grounds, alleging inadequate reasoning, errors concerning the sanction, and perversity. The central issue was whether the majority reasons adequately explained why the employer’s conclusions and dismissal were reasonable.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed Grounds 1, 2 and 3, and dismissed the perversity challenge in Ground 4.
2. The Tribunal’s reasons were not compliant with the requirements identified in Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250. The majority merely stated that it agreed with the Governors’ view. It did not analyse any of the six charges by considering the charge, the evidence and the conclusion reached.
3. The majority’s reasoning on reasonableness was also inadequate. The statement that the teacher’s acknowledgement of fault demonstrated that the Governors’ beliefs were reasonably held contained no analysis of the relevant evidence or reasoning.
4. The reasoning on sanction was deficient because it did not consider the employer’s stated reasons for finding gross misconduct, breach of trust and confidence, and the appropriateness of summary dismissal. A Tribunal may take account of submissions made by a trade union representative or other participants, but those matters concern weight and do not relieve the Tribunal of its duty to analyse the employer’s reasons and decide whether dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. The case had to be considered against the background of British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379.
5. The appeal was not allowed on perversity. The high threshold identified in Yeboah v Crofton [2002] IRLR 634 was not met. The defect was absence of reasoning, rather than perversity.
6. The case was remitted to the same Employment Tribunal for a further hearing in the light of this Judgment. No further evidence could be called, but the parties were to be permitted to make submissions before the Tribunal reached its decision.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal allowed on Grounds 1, 2 and 3 and dismissed on Ground 4; remitted to the same Employment Tribunal.
• Employment Tribunal: by majority, held the dismissal fair and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.