first_img Comments are closed. This week’s case round upWilson v Ethicon, IDS Brief 655, EAT• Wilson was suspended for gross misconduct after failing to carry out arequired testing procedure on the assembly line where she worked. Ethi-conobtained statements from two witnesses and Wilson was dismissed. Her internalappeal was unsuccessful, as was her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunalapplied the Burchell test and concluded Ethicon’s investigation was reasonableand the dismissal fell with-in the band of reasonable responses.Wilson appealed. The EAT held that the tribunal had merely satisfied itselfthat Ethicon’s investigation was adequate but had failed to consider thereasonableness overall of the decision to dismiss as required by the case ofHaddon. Taking into account Wilson’s long-standing, unblemished work record,Ethicon and the tribunal should have considered whether there were alternativesto dismissal. The EAT remitted the case to a differently constituted tribunalfor a re-hearing.Victimisation and referencesChief Constable of West Yorkshire v Khan, unreported, February 2000, Courtof Appeal• Khan, a police sergeant, brought a race discrimination claim after failingto secure promotion. But before this was heard he applied for promotion withanother police force. In accordance with normal procedures, that forcerequested a reference and details of Khan’s appraisals. The chief constablerefused to comply with the request in case this prejudiced the tribunal claim.Khan was not appointed to the new post.Khan amended his tribunal claim to include victimisation and this was upheldeven though his race discrimination claim was dismissed. The EAT upheld thetribunal’s findings and the chief constable appealed unsuccessfully to theCourt of Appeal. The test to be applied was the objective “but for” test and theintention to commit less favourable treatment, irrespective of a consciousmotive to discriminate. The court held that but for the tribunal proceedings areference would have been provided and Khan had been treated less favourably bycommencing those proceedings. The correct approach was to compare Khan’streatment with that of an employee requesting a reference rather than tosomeone who had brought proceedings against their employer. What is the correct test of reasonableness?On 14 Mar 2000 in Personnel Today Related posts:No related photos. Previous Article Next Articlelast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *