Related posts:No related photos. Caseround-up by Eversheds 020 7919 4500‘Fair’but not ‘perfect’South West Trains Limited v McDonnell, EAT, 9 June 2003Minorerrors in a disciplinary process are obviously unfortunate, but need notundermine the whole process if it is otherwise fair.McDonnell,a trade union recruitment secretary, was dismissed for intimidating andharassing a colleague. He claimed his dismissal was automatically unfairbecause of his trade union membership/activities. Despite being satisfied thatMcDonnell’s conduct was the principal reason for dismissal, the tribunalnonetheless decided that flaws in the company’s procedure rendered hisdismissal unfair. Thethree principal errors identified were that the company had: failed to follow acollectively agreed procedure for disciplining trade union officials;interviewed McDonnell before any other witnesses; and failed to require anywitnesses to attend the disciplinary hearing to be cross-examined. The companyappealed, successfully.TheEmployment Appeal Tribunal found that the tribunal’s conclusion that theprocess was fatally flawed was not justified. The order in which the witnesseswere interviewed did not have any bearing on the eventual decision to dismiss,and there was no requirement for witnesses to be present at the disciplinaryhearing. Asa result, the unfair dismissal decision could not stand and would need to beremitted to a fresh tribunal. The key questions which the tribunal had omittedto address were whether the company had actually breached its own procedure andif not, whether the decision to dismiss McDonnell was within the range ofreasonable responses.Hewho hesitates is lost?Cow v Surrey and Berkshire Newspapers Limited, EAT, 7 March 2003Followinga business reorganisation affecting her working arrangements, Cow initiated thecompany’s grievance procedure. Throughout the five-month grievance and appealprocess she worked according to the new arrangements. Three weeks after hercomplaint was dismissed, however, she resigned and brought a claim forconstructive dismissal. Thetribunal rejected Cow’s claim, taking into account that she had had a number ofmonths in the new job. It concluded that during the grievance process she musthave contemplated what she would do if her grievance was not upheld and that bywaiting a further three weeks to resign, her actions indicated she had acceptedthe changes to her contract. Cow appealed. TheEAT conceded that three weeks was short in terms of delay. However, it wassatisfied that the tribunal had not considered Cow’s three-week delay inisolation, but looked at the grievance review period. In this period Cow hadcontinued to work, be paid and received a pay increase. The EAT thereforeupheld the tribunal decision. Thecorrect approach is to look at the period of delay as a whole, what occurredduring the three weeks’ delay following rejection of the grievance, and theoverall circumstances during the five-month process. Previous Article Next Article Comments are closed. Case round-upOn 9 Sep 2003 in Personnel Today
(BBC) – World 400m champion Salwa Eid Naser has been given a provisional suspension for failing to make herself available for anti-doping tests.The Bahraini, 22, ran 48.14 seconds – the third-fastest time in history – to claim the world title in Doha in 2019.Naser, who was born in Nigeria but switched allegiance to Bahrain in 2014, is the first Asian woman to be world champion in the discipline.She could face a ban of up to two years for the whereabouts violation.World Athletics anti-doping rules say a whereabouts violation consists of any combination of three missed tests or filing failures in a 12-month period.