Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • 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

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • 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

Case lawEmployment lawDismissal

Johnson Mathey plc v Watters

by Eversheds HR Group 31 Oct 2006
by Eversheds HR Group 31 Oct 2006

Johnson Mathey plc v Watters, EAT, 9 October 2006


Background


Mr Watters was responsible for four production lines at Johnson Mathey. As a result of trying to resolve a technical problem by cutting through wires (which fell within three listed examples of gross misconduct in the staff handbook), he was suspended, and following a disciplinary hearing and appeal, he was dismissed.


Watters successfully claimed unfair dismissal. The tribunal ordered re-engagement in a more junior post, reflecting his own contribution to his dismissal. The employer appealed.


Decision


The tribunal’s decision was upheld. Having considered the factors the employer should have taken into account (the circumstances of the incident, the employer’s responsibilities, the employer’s failures to identify risk prior to dismissal and to pay real regard to the risk of loss or damage), the EAT held that no reasonable employer would have dismissed Watters.


The employer argued that re-engagement was not practicable as there had been a breakdown in trust and confidence. However, the EAT was not prepared to overturn the re-engagement order. In deciding there was no reason why Watters could not be successfully integrated back into the workforce, the tribunal took into account that:




  • the event leading to dismissal was an isolated incident and unlikely to re-occur


  • the employee was willing to ‘draw a line’ under the events


  • the employee’s colleagues were supportive


  • the employee did not have to report to the managers involved in his dismissal.

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.

Comment


It is rare for a tribunal to order reinstatement or re-engagement. The tribunal stated that “in any situation in which the claimant [succeeds] there is likely to be an element of difficulty on the part of the [employer] in swallowing its pride and taking the employee back”. However, the tribunal noted that if this was to thwart a re-engagement request, then the remedy would be of no practical effect.

Eversheds HR Group

previous post
Home Office looks to increase visa fees for migrant workers to the UK
next post
Employment law: is compulsory mediation a good idea?

You may also like

MPs reject Lords’ amendments to Employment Rights Bill

16 Sep 2025

Judge in Supreme Court ruling said he’d ‘take...

15 Sep 2025

Employment lawyers voice AI fears on tribunal claims

15 Sep 2025

Day one rights to make 86% more cautious...

14 Sep 2025

Employment Rights Bill U-turn unlikely, say legal experts

10 Sep 2025

Day one rights in the Employment Rights Bill...

10 Sep 2025

Reshuffle sparks fears over Employment Rights Bill

8 Sep 2025

How to manage workplace investigations effectively

5 Sep 2025

‘Terrible’ Employment Rights Bill returns to Commons

4 Sep 2025

New ‘failure to prevent fraud’ law a ‘game-changer’

2 Sep 2025

  • Workplace health benefits need to be simplified SPONSORED | Long-term sickness...Read more
  • Work smart – stay well: Avoid unnecessary pain with centred ergonomics SPONSORED | If you often notice...Read more
  • Elevate your L&D strategy at the World of Learning 2025 SPONSORED | This October...Read more
  • How to employ a global workforce from the UK (webinar) WEBINAR | With an unpredictable...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 Live
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
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
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • 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