header-logo header-logo

02 April 2009 / Michael Salter , Chris Bryden
Issue: 7363 / Categories: Features , Tribunals , Procedure & practice , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment: Overstepping the mark

Tribunals should not stray beyond their core remit. Chris Bryden & Michael Salter explain why

It is a well-established and longstanding principle of employment law that, when faced with a misconduct dismissal, an employment tribunal must not substitute its own view of the claimant's alleged conduct for that taken by the employer's disciplinary panel.

This is because it is not the tribunal's role to decide what it would have done had its members been sitting in the disciplinary hearing. Rather, it is the function of the tribunal to determine whether or not in coming to its decision the employer acted reasonably. As Mr Justice Pugsley stated in London Borough of Sutton v Kester UKEAT/0187/06/MAA (2006): “The substitution by a tribunal of its view of the matter, as opposed to looking at whether the Respondent's actions were within the range of reasonable responses, is not an empty legalistic forma. It goes to the very heart of the function of a Tribunal. Tribunals have neither the experience or the expertise nor the information before them to assume the role of castigating employers,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll