R Ejvet v Genesis Education Trust

An Employment Tribunal’s reasons satisfy rule 62(5) where, read fairly and as a whole, they identify the material issues, findings, applicable law and route to the result. The question is one of substance, not presentation. Reasons need not address every item of evidence or every disputed issue, and an appellate court must not infer from an omission that relevant material was ignored.

For conduct dismissal, the Tribunal must determine whether the employer genuinely believed misconduct had occurred, on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and whether dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. A procedural complaint will not justify intervention without a serious irregularity causing material injustice.

The claimant, an executive head teacher, was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct following concerns about the award of a school building contract to a company operated by her husband and brother-in-law. Her internal appeal was a rehearing and was unsuccessful.

The Employment Tribunal dismissed claims for ordinary and automatic unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. It found that dismissal was for conduct and was fair.

Before the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the claimant alleged inadequate reasons under rule 62(5) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, failures to consider relevant matters, inadequate treatment of protected-disclosure claims, and a serious procedural irregularity arising from a late-disclosed document. The central issue was whether those matters disclosed an error of law or material unfairness.

1. Appeal dismissed. Read fairly and as a whole, the Tribunal’s reasons complied with rule 62(5) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and were Meek-compliant. Although a clearer structure would have assisted the reader, the reasons sufficiently identified what had been decided and why.

2. The Tribunal was not required to reproduce the parties’ draft list of issues, determine every disputed issue separately, or refer to every item of evidence. Its findings and conclusions showed that it had addressed the essential questions concerning conduct dismissal: genuine belief, reasonable grounds, a reasonable investigation, and whether dismissal lay within the range of reasonable responses under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

3. The Tribunal had permissibly found that the employer had reasonably investigated serious concerns about the procurement of a substantial contract connected to the claimant’s relatives. It was entitled to find that the disciplinary process, taken with the rehearing appeal, was fair and that dismissal for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses.

4. The protected-disclosure reasoning was sufficient. The Tribunal had assumed in the claimant’s favour that the November disclosure was protected, but found it played no causative part in the timing of the disciplinary hearing. Its clear finding that conduct was, beyond doubt, the reason for dismissal was broad enough to dispose of the lightly advanced automatic-unfair-dismissal case, including the later disclosure.

5. No error arose from the alleged omission of relevant matters or consideration of irrelevant matters. The Tribunal addressed the significance of the tendering process, the claimant’s responsibility as executive head teacher, and the consequences of the established misconduct. It expressly treated alleged defects in building work as irrelevant.

6. There was no serious procedural irregularity causing material injustice. On the evidence, the claimant’s counsel had seen the late-disclosed document and had referred to it in written submissions. In any event, the document did not materially advance the case.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed: [2022] EAT 75.
• Employment Tribunal (East London): By a unanimous reserved judgment sent to the parties on 20 August 2019, dismissed the claimant’s claims of unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments.