Overview
An interesting judgement was delivered by the Court of Appeal on the 11th February 2019 in which it was held that a summary dismissal of an employee is an exception and not the rule and is accepted only in limited scenarios.
Read more
Facts of the Case
The facts of the case decided by the Court of Appeal were as follows : the employee filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal in which he contended that his dismissal was unjust. The company rebutted the claim by holding that not only was the employee negligent in fulfilling his duties but he was also given verbal warnings on numerous occasions. The main issue revolved around one last incident which according to the company, happened due to the employee’s negligence. The incident occurred when the employee was loading boxes onto a lifter. These boxes fell off and damaged the goods. As a result, he was dismissed on the spot. The Industrial Tribunal decided that the employee’s dismissal was justified on the above-mentioned grounds.
An appeal was lodged to the Court of Appeal by the employee claiming that his dismissal was unjust on the grounds that there was no concrete evidence showing that the incident was due to his negligence.
Legal Considerations
Article 82(3) of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act states that an appeal in cases of unfair dismissal may only be made on points of law. The Court of Appeal held that it was allowed to examine the evidence and see whether the Tribunal followed the principles of law.
The Court of Appeal examined the case and agreed with the employee in that the Industrial Tribunal decided the case without having sufficient evidence to arrive at its decision. The court held that, despite the fact that numerous employees claimed that the employee was given a number of warnings, no details and information on such warnings were provided by way of evidence to the court. Additionally, the court also commented on the fact that another employee (who was responsible for picking the boxes once they arrived on his floor) did not testify and he was the only person present during the incident.
The court explained the need to establish the blame on the part of the employee in a proper manner and concluded that this was not established. Adding to its arguments, the court also noted that health and safety regulations were not properly complied with. The Court concluded that the employee was summarily dismissed on the simple assumption that since he had operated the fork lifter then it was his fault. In essence, the Court held that the employee was not even given a chance to explain himself.
On these grounds the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Industrial Tribunal holding that the dismissal was unjustified.
