McCollum v Newport City Council

An Employment Tribunal’s reasons are adequate where, read fairly as a whole, they identify the issues, state the applicable law, explain its application to the facts found, and show why the result was reached. The reasons need not follow a prescribed structure or use headings. Rule 62(5) of the Employment Tribunal Rules is a guide, not a straitjacket.

In a reasons-only appeal, the appellate tribunal should assess whether the necessary reasoning is apparent. It should not treat the amount of detail devoted to the disciplinary process as a defect where that process is material to the statutory fairness assessment.

The claimant, a social worker employed by a local authority in child-protection work, was summarily dismissed for misconduct following an investigation and disciplinary process. On appeal within the employer’s procedure, three allegations were upheld.

An Employment Tribunal at Port Talbot dismissed her unfair-dismissal complaint in reasons promulgated on 1 August 2014. The claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on one permitted ground: that the Tribunal’s reasons were not Meek-compliant. The central issue was whether the reasons adequately explained why the dismissal was fair.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal’s reasons were adequate. Although they had no headings setting out a staged analysis, such a format was not mandatory. The question was whether the reasons, fairly read, contained the necessary explanation; they did.

2. The Tribunal had identified the conduct-unfair-dismissal issue under section 98(4), correctly directed itself on the Burchell approach, and applied that law to its findings. Its reasons showed that it considered the investigation, the disciplinary hearing, the internal appeal, the claimant’s opportunity to put her case, alleged bias, and delay.

3. The reasons also identified why the employer had reasonable grounds for its belief in the misconduct ultimately upheld, why the process remained fair despite delay, and why dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. The Tribunal was entitled to prefer the respondent’s evidence and to regard the most serious upheld allegation as important.

4. Rule 62(5) of the Employment Tribunal Rules was a guide rather than a straitjacket. The absence of formal headings did not prevent the reasons from being compliant with the duty to tell the parties why they had won or lost.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the claimant’s reasons-only appeal on 6 October 2015.
• Employment Tribunal, Port Talbot: dismissed the claimant’s unfair-dismissal complaint in reasons promulgated on 1 August 2014.