Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Employment lawUnfair dismissal

Case round-up: Bradford & Bingley v McCarthy, EAT

by Personnel Today 30 Apr 2010
by Personnel Today 30 Apr 2010

During a reorganisation of the respondent’s business, two positions were merged creating a new single role.


Both employees were considered eligible for the new position, but the respondent showed a clear preference towards one employee. The new position was offered to the preferred employee and the other employee (the claimant) was dismissed.


The tribunal decided the respondent acted unreasonably, the process of selection was not conducted objectively and the claimant’s dismissal was unfair.


On appeal, the respondent raised four matters:




  • The tribunal failed to consider s98A(2) Employment Rights Act, which states that an employer’s failure to follow a dismissal procedure shall not be regarded as unreasonable if the employer can show that they would have dismissed the employee if they had followed the procedure. The EAT allowed the appeal on this point and remitted this aspect of the case to the tribunal.


  • The tribunal had made an error in imposing a burden of proof on the respondent to prove that the dismissal was fair. The EAT did not uphold this point, finding that the tribunal had merely pointed to the evidence that showed the selection process was potentially unfair and asked the respondent whether it was able to rebut the potential unfairness.


  • The tribunal effectively put a burden on the respondent to call particular witnesses to give evidence. The EAT stated that there was such a clear case of potential bias that the tribunal was right to consider the respondent’s failure to call other persons to rebut the potential bias.


  • The respondent had to prove that the interview process was objective, as opposed to one that a reasonable employer would have adopted. The EAT held that the selection process appeared to be inherently flawed and the respondent had not been able to show otherwise.

Key points




  • In an unfair dismissal case, where the claimant puts forward evidence that points strongly to the dismissal being unfair, the tribunal will take a common sense approach and will expect the respondent to call the relevant evidence to rebut the strong case of unfairness. This does not necessarily mean that the tribunal has placed a burden of proof on the respondent.


  • An employer should always ask whether it can demonstrate that any redundancy/dismissal process it took was fair and whether it could rebut any evidence of unfairness.

What you should do




  • This case is a reminder that an employer should conduct a fair process when dismissing employees. The employer should have placed both employees in a redundancy ‘selection pool’ and applied objective selection criteria.

Avatar
Personnel Today

previous post
Tune into Brightwave’s New LiveTime Learning Channel
next post
General election immigration policies: how the three main political parties’ policies will affect HR

You may also like

Holiday pay changes: how entitlement will be simplified

26 May 2023

Bank holidays: six things employers need to know

26 May 2023

Non-compete clauses and proposed limits on their duration

12 May 2023

How are working time records changing in the...

12 May 2023

Changes to working time, TUPE and non-competes announced

10 May 2023

£3m award for unfairly dismissed Isle of Man...

4 May 2023

Top 10 HR questions April 2023: Bank holiday...

3 May 2023

Government urged not to backtrack on Worker Protection...

2 May 2023

EU law bill set to stall as unions...

28 Apr 2023

High Court halts full nurses’ strike

27 Apr 2023

  • The HR Bundle: Your one-stop guide to building a successful global HR Department PROMOTED | Get your hands on Deel’s free HR bundle...Read more
  • The Benefits of an Employee Assistance Programme PROMOTED | EAPs support employees in a range of ways...Read more
  • Intergenerational working and how to manage up and down the generations PROMOTED | The benefits and challenges of intergenerational workplaces...Read more
  • Bereavement in the workplace: How training can help HR get it right PROMOTED | HR professionals play an essential role...Read more
  • UK workforce mental wellbeing needs PROMOTED | The mental wellbeing support employers are providing misses the mark...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2023

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2023 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+