Smart v Waterbeach Parish Council

An employment tribunal must give reasons sufficient to show why it concluded that an employer had reasonable grounds for its belief in misconduct. The adequacy of reasons depends on the circumstances. Fuller reasons are required where the tribunal’s objective finding for a wrongful-dismissal claim differs from the employer’s finding, and the employee has made detailed challenges to the employer’s reasoning.

A finding that summary dismissal was wrongful may coexist with a finding that dismissal was fair. The former concerns whether gross misconduct was objectively proved. The latter concerns the employer’s process, evidence and conclusions. A bare assertion that the employer acted reasonably will not suffice where the challenged findings require explanation.

The claimant had been a part-time parish clerk for 20 years. She was summarily dismissed following disciplinary proceedings concerning alleged bullying, treatment of a worker after protected disclosures, and the handling of chemicals.

The Employment Tribunal held that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed, because gross misconduct had not been objectively proved. It nevertheless dismissed her unfair-dismissal claim. It held that procedural defects in the original disciplinary process had been cured by an independent appeal-panel rehearing and that the panel had reasonably found misconduct.

The claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The central issue was whether the Employment Tribunal had given adequate reasons for concluding that the appeal panel had reasonable grounds for its findings of misconduct.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Tribunal’s conclusion that the appeal panel had reasonable grounds for its findings of misconduct could not stand because the Tribunal had not given adequate reasons for it.

2. Wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal involve different inquiries. Wrongful dismissal required the Tribunal objectively to decide, on the balance of probabilities and on the evidence before it, whether conduct justifying summary dismissal had been proved. Fairness required it to assess the employer’s process, the material before the employer and the employer’s conclusions.

3. The Tribunal’s statement that it was reasonable for the disciplinary and appeal panels to reach their conclusions was substantially a bare conclusion. Reasons may sometimes be sufficient without detailed elaboration. Here, however, fuller reasons were necessary because the Tribunal’s own finding on gross misconduct differed from that of the appeal panel, and the claimant had advanced detailed written challenges to the panel’s findings.

4. The appeal panel’s bullying finding was open to legitimate criticism. The allegation lacked clear particulars, the panel did not identify particular acts of bullying, and its reasoning appeared to rest on the workers’ subjective feelings. Those matters did not determine whether the panel’s conclusion was reasonable, but they required the Tribunal to explain why it considered that conclusion reasonably open to the panel.

5. The case was remitted to the Employment Tribunal to reconsider, with a clear focus, whether the appeal panel had reasonable grounds for its findings of misconduct. The EAT did not determine that question itself.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the claimant’s appeal and remitted the question whether the appeal panel had reasonable grounds for its misconduct findings.
• Employment Tribunal, Bury St Edmunds: judgment sent on 21 August 2012 after a five-day hearing. It found the claimant wrongfully dismissed but held that her dismissal was fair.