[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Bishop v Graham Group Ltd [1998] UKEAT 800_98_0110 (1 October 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/800_98_0110.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 800_98_110, [1998] UKEAT 800_98_0110

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR GUY PRICHARD (of Counsel) Instructed by: Mr A Bevan Messrs Bevans Solicitors 155 Whiteladies Road Clifton Bristol BS8 2RF


 


LORD JOHNSTON: This is a preliminary hearing at the instance of the employee, Mr D S Bishop, in respect of a finding of an Industrial Tribunal in favour of his employers, the Graham Group Ltd, that he had been fairly dismissed from his employment, consequent upon an incident involving the unauthorised handling of a management pack and the subsequent treating of that conduct by the employer.

Mr Prichard who appeared before us, focused upon the issue of summary dismissal and when it could be justified. He particularly focused on the question of whether or not in the circumstances of this case where it appeared that on one view, at least, there was an over-reaction by the employer, the tribunal had properly categorised this conduct on the part of the employer as sufficiently serious to warrant summary dismissal.

We consider that Mr Prichard has satisfied us that there is an issue to try in this case on appeal, not least because of the high onus there is upon the employer to justify dismissal on a summary basis in respect of one incident and its surrounding circumstances.

There is also a question which is inevitably going to arise in the context of an unfair dismissal as to the contributory conduct of the employee. That again, is something which the tribunal, in our view, should have at least considered in the context of whether or not the proper reaction should have been to warn the employee rather than to dismiss him. We offer no view as to the substance of that question, but identify as an issue to try on appeal. This case will therefore be allowed to proceed to a full hearing.

Having said that, however, there is an important question focused by Mr Prichard's skeleton argument in paragraph 11 where he told us and so there states that at the tribunal Mr McGuin, who was dismissing employer's representative, had told the tribunal that he actually believed what the appellant had told him by way of explanation of his actions. We consider that this would be an important question to feature at the full hearing before the tribunal, and we will therefore direct that the Chairman of this Industrial Tribunal will be asked to comment upon that particular assertion and to state whether or not he has a recollection of the matter as stated by Mr Prichard in his skeleton argument.

Against that background, this case will proceed to a full hearing.