Case round-up

This week’s case roundup

Reasonable response for an employer
Marlowe Child and Family Services v McIntosh, EAT, 2 October 2002 All
ER(D) 294

McIntosh worked as a care worker for Marlowe Child and Family Services
(MCFS), which provided care, education and therapy for children and young
people. In May 2000, he was dismissed for gross misconduct after having given
inaccurate information to MCFS in respect of previous convictions, making
inappropriate use of company time and making threats against his employer.
McIntosh brought a complaint of unfair dismissal to an employment tribunal and
was successful. MCFS appealed.  The
Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld MCFS’s appeal.

The reason for McIntosh’s dismissal related to his conduct. The issue to be
determined was whether the dismissal was fair. The EAT held that MCFS’s
response in dismissing McIntosh for gross misconduct was within the band of
reasonable responses for an employer.

Obligation to perform reasonable duties
Rooke v Anglian Water Services Limited, EAT, 17 June 2002, All ER(D) 91

Rooke worked as an engineer for Anglian, based in Colchester. Following a
promotion, Rooke refused to sign his new contract due to a pay dispute,
although he continued to work as normal.

Following a business reorganisation, Rooke was asked to relocate (in
accordance with a mobility clause in his new contract), to which he objected.
Anglian offered him an alternative position remaining in Colchester, which he
also declined. Rooke refused to sign a new contract but remained bound by a
clause in his original contract requiring him to ‘perform such other reasonable
duties as may be required’. From that time onwards, his attendance at work and
performance deteriorated.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

Email(Required)

OptOut

From time to time, we will send you emails about selected products, events and services from Personnel Today and OHW+ - but you can choose to opt-out at any time. If you do not wish to receive these emails, please tick this box.

Email

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Δ

Six months later, following a disciplinary process, he was summarily
dismissed for his misconduct.

Rooke’s unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed and he appealed. The EAT
then dismissed his appeal. Although Rooke’s disagreement with Anglian centred
on a dispute over the new contract, that had nothing to do with his dismissal,
nor could it justify his misconduct. His dismissal was brought about by his
behaviour, for example, in refusing to attend a training course or carry out
project work. Given the circumstances, his dismissal was both substantively and
procedurally fair.