Williams v Guardian Care Homes Ltd & Ors

An Employment Tribunal must explain how its factual findings and the applicable law resolve the issues. Detailed factual findings do not compensate for a failure to evaluate the employer’s reasons for dismissal. In an unfair-dismissal case, the Tribunal should identify the conduct relied on, assess the employer’s grounds for treating it as misconduct, consider whether dismissal was a reasonable response, and address the principal submissions.

Where the identity of the employer is disputed, the Tribunal must identify the employer. Joint employment by companies in the same group cannot be presumed merely because they share ownership or management.

The Claimant appealed against part of a judgment of the Newcastle Employment Tribunal dated 2 July 2010. Her claims included unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure, and detriment for making a protected disclosure. The Tribunal dismissed the claims, finding that her dismissal for conduct was fair.

The Claimant challenged the sufficiency of the Tribunal’s reasons. The Respondent companies cross-appealed the Tribunal’s direction that any judgment should be entered against them jointly and severally. The central issues were whether the Tribunal had adequately addressed the reasons for dismissal and whether it had properly identified the Claimant’s employer.

1. Appeal and cross-appeal allowed. The unfair-dismissal decision and the direction for joint and several liability could not stand. The unfair-dismissal issue was remitted to the same Tribunal for reconsideration.
2. Rule 30(6)(e) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2004 required the Tribunal to explain how its findings of fact and the applicable law had been applied to determine the issues. This reflected the common-law requirement stated in Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250: the parties must be told why they won or lost, and the reasons must permit appellate consideration of any question of law.
3. The Tribunal had made extensive findings of fact but had not adequately evaluated the Respondents’ reasons for dismissal. It should have started with the reasons of the actual dismissing officer and addressed what assistance the Claimant was found to have given, what was objectionable about it, whether those conclusions were reasonably reached, whether the conduct amounted to misconduct, whether it justified summary dismissal, and whether a lesser penalty was reasonably open. It should also have addressed the principal submissions. The Tribunal could take account of the appeal process and the appeal officer’s conclusions, applying Taylor v OCS Group Limited [2006] ICR 1602.
4. Under section 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the right not to be unfairly dismissed is a right against the employer. Where that identity is disputed, the Tribunal must determine it. Joint employment is possible, but joint employment by a group of companies is unusual and cannot be inferred simply from common ownership. The Tribunal should have examined the contractual document issued by Guardian Care Homes (UK) Limited and considered whether it was genuine and whether the employer’s identity had subsequently changed.
5. Remission to the same Tribunal was appropriate. Although its impartial reconsideration had to be assessed, practical justice and the substantial evidence already heard favoured that course. The Tribunal was trusted to reconsider the unfair-dismissal issue carefully and afresh, using the existing bundles and focused written submissions.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the appeal on the adequacy of reasons, allowed the cross-appeal concerning identification of the employer, and remitted the unfair-dismissal issue to the same Tribunal.
• Newcastle Employment Tribunal: by judgment dated 2 July 2010, dismissed the Claimant’s claims and directed that any judgment be entered jointly and severally against the Respondent companies.