Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • 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
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • 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
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Employment lawDismissal

Dismissal upheld despite lack of warning

by Personnel Today 22 Oct 2007
by Personnel Today 22 Oct 2007

Homeserve Emergency Services Limited v Dixon

FACTS Mr Dixon was employed as a chief service engineer. The case involved an incident when he was discovered by his manager to have been undertaking private work during company time and using a company vehicle for private use, which is against company rules.

Homeserve suspended Dixon and invited him to a disciplinary meeting. The letter stated that the allegation was breaching contractual obligations by conducting private business using company property. At the disciplinary, Dixon admitted the allegation and was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. His appeal was rejected and he brought an unfair dismissal claim.

DECISION The tribunal found that Homeserve could reasonably conclude that Dixon was guilty of the misconduct alleged, and his ordinary unfair dismissal claim was rejected. However, the tribunal questioned whether there had been a breach of the statutory discipline and dismissal procedure (SDDP) and held that Homeserve was in breach of step one of the SDDP for failing to state in the letter that dismissal was a possible outcome.

The tribunal also found that Homeserve failed to comply with step two of the SDDP in that Dixon was not given sufficient detail to be able to adequately put his case. Consequently, the dismissal was automatically unfair. The tribunal awarded a basic award, but held that Dixon had contributed to his dismissal 100% and was not entitled to a compensatory award.

Homeserve appealed. In considering what is necessary to comply with step one of the SDDP, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) referred to the statement of the law in Alexander v Brigden Enterprises Ltd that “at step one the employee simply needs to be told that he is at risk of dismissal and why” but said that in this case it was implicit in the letter calling Dixon to the disciplinary hearing that the employer was contemplating dismissal or other disciplinary action. The tribunal was, therefore, wrong in law to find that Homeserve had failed to comply with step one simply because the letter did not state that dismissal was a possible outcome.

The EAT also held that the tribunal was wrong to conclude that Homeserve had failed to comply with step two. The tribunal fell into error in considering that something must take place between the step one letter and the hearing.

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

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

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

KEY IMPLICATIONS This is a surprising decision that should be treated with a degree of caution. In general, it would not be safe for employers to assume they will be able to successfully defend a claim of unfair dismissal if the employee has not been warned before the disciplinary hearing that dismissal is a possible outcome.

Although this case follows the general trend of interpreting the statutory dispute resolution procedures in a non-technical way, the EAT has gone further by suggesting that tribunals should not only examine the plain words of a letter to see if it complies with step one, but may also read between the lines to look for “implicit” meanings.

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Speech defects: stammering and stuttering
next post
Personal pension accounts – will they meet the pension needs of an ageing population?

You may also like

Fire and rehire: the relocation question

22 May 2025

Minister defends Employment Rights Bill at Acas conference

16 May 2025

CBI chair Soames accuses ministers of not listening...

16 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

‘Polygamous working’ is a minefield for HR

14 May 2025

Contract cleaner loses EAT race discrimination appeal

14 May 2025

Construction workers win compensation claim against defunct employer

9 May 2025

Zero-hours workers’ rights to be extended from beyond...

8 May 2025

Employment tribunal backlog up 23% in a year

7 May 2025

Ministers urged to outlaw misuse of NDAs

7 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...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 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • 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
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+