Healey v Wincanton Plc

Under Employment Rights Act 1996, section 98 requires a tribunal to determine the employer’s actual reason for dismissal. Where that issue concerns the dismissing officer’s state of mind, the central question may be whether the tribunal accepts that officer’s evidence.

A tribunal must give sufficient reasons to identify and resolve the principal controversial issues. It need not address every argument or item of evidence. Relevant evidence may also be excluded where its limited materiality does not justify a disproportionate inquiry. A procedural complaint succeeds only if the irregularity is material.

An HGV driver appealed against the Liverpool Employment Tribunal’s dismissal of his unfair-dismissal claim. The employer had dismissed him for deliberately and repeatedly refusing to obey a reasonable management instruction concerning temperature checking.

The claimant maintained that the real reason was his earlier tribunal proceedings and his health-and-safety grievance about tail lifts. He also challenged the adequacy of the Tribunal’s reasons, alleged inconsistent treatment, disputed evidential rulings, and raised apparent-bias and procedural-irregularity complaints.

The central issue was whether the Tribunal had made an error of law in accepting the dismissing officer’s stated reason and in its treatment of the claimant’s arguments and evidence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to accept the dismissing officer’s credible evidence that dismissal resulted from the claimant’s deliberate refusal to comply with a reasonable instruction, rather than from protected disclosures or a grievance.

2. Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 directs attention to the employer’s reason, and particularly to the state of mind of the person who decided to dismiss. Where that person gives the only direct evidence of the reason, the Tribunal’s essential task may be to decide whether to believe that evidence. It was not required to conduct a formulaic balancing exercise between every competing explanation.

3. The Tribunal’s reasons were adequate. It identified why it accepted the dismissing officer’s account and resolved the central issue. A tribunal must explain its resolution of the principal important controversies, but it need not record every point raised. The comparator evidence was not a sufficiently significant issue to require further express treatment, particularly as it did not establish materially equivalent circumstances.

4. The Tribunal was entitled, applying proportionality, to refuse an extended inquiry into an earlier written warning. Although such material might be relevant to credibility, its limited likely value did not require a separate unfair-dismissal-style examination.

5. The lay member’s earlier comments did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias. They disclosed neither personal interest nor an irrational predisposition against the claimant. The alleged interruptions and restrictions on questioning were proper case-management measures and did not amount to a material procedural irregularity.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed: [2014] UKEAT 0400_13_0702.
• Employment Tribunal at Liverpool: The claimant’s unfair-dismissal claim was dismissed in reasons delivered on 12 September 2012.