Karen Plumbley-JonesA bus driver was dismissed for gross misconduct after fighting with a driver from another company. He brought a claim for unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal (ET) upheld his claim because of flaws in the disciplinary process and because the employer had treated another driver more favourably in a similar case. The employer appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the ET had not applied the correct legal test when assessing the fairness of the dismissal. The ET had substituted its own judgement for that of the employer. There were several procedural flaws in the disciplinary process, including inconsistent treatment, but the ET had not properly considered whether these issues meant that dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses. The case was remitted to a fresh ET for rehearing.
The claimant is a university lecturer who has Aspergers Syndrome, a form of autism spectrum disorder. This was accepted as a disability by the respondent (a university). The claimant has hidden his disability from his family and employers all his working life, although the respondent was aware of it. He brought a disability discrimination claim against his employer and applied for an anonymity order since he had concerns that if his disability became public, it would have an adverse impact on his future employment. The ET refused to grant the order and the claimant appealed. The EAT granted the order. The claimant’s concerns were genuinely held, had an objective foundation and were reasonable. The EAT also ordered that the respondent’s identity should not be disclosed; without this, the claimant’s identity was likely to be revealed from the details of the case.
Campbell v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and another
An employee made racist comments to another employee in the workplace. The second employee brought a claim for racial harassment. The ET held that the remarks had been made but the employer had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the first employee from making the comments so it had a defence to the claim. The claimant appealed, arguing that the employer should have done more to prevent the remarks being made. The EAT agreed with the ET and found the employer had taken four steps to prevent the discrimination taking place: it had carried out an induction session that covered its core values and acceptable behaviour at work; the first employee had had annual appraisals that considered compliance with the employer’s values; there were posters in areas where the first employee worked that displayed the employer’s values; and mandatory equality and diversity training was carried out every three years and had taken place just before the incident occurred. No further steps had been suggested by the claimant so it was reasonable for the ET to conclude that the steps the employer had taken comprised all reasonable steps.
