Last week's EAT decisions showed an interesting case which employers should take notice of. This case centred around the dismissal of an employee and their subsequent claim for Unfair Dismissal.
Case in question
The employee was dismissed in the 'heat of the moment' by the employer and the Tribunal noted this in their decision.
In the case of Stadnik v Walton Logistics UD484 [2011] the employee was a truck driver. Following an accident at work, he was told to attend a meeting as the employer was unhappy him. This is because there were five separate incidents in his truck (the employee only claimed ownership of two of these).
Following the meeting, the business informed the employee that they needed to take stock, which the employer claimed to mean the employee had to take a break such as a few days off work.
The employee sought his P45 following the meeting and some weeks later requested a letter outlining the reasons for his dismissal. The business responded to the employee stating he had not been dismissed and his job was available to him. There was no clarification as to whether or not the time off was to be treated as annual leave or a period of suspension. But, the business reiterated that he was not dismissed.
Tribunal decision
The Tribunal's determination is useful as they highlight that although the employee was dismissed, they found that the employer did this in the "heat of the moment" and was not in bad faith. They further stated that the employer had sought to correct this months later and stated that "whereas the tribunal accepts that it was reasonable for the claimant not to want to return to work for the respondent nonetheless, the tribunal determines that the respondent has to be commended for seeking to resolve the dispute."
What is confusing is that after identifying the lengths the employer went to reinstate the employee, he was still awarded over €6,000 in compensation. No doubt this figure could have been significantly larger had the employer not acted as they had, nor had the employee made any real effort to mitigate his losses.
Similar cases
The heat of the moment dismissals are not uncommon and do make for interesting reading. In the UK case of Willoughby v C F Capital the employee was dismissed. The line manager tried to rectify the situation sometime later to allow them back to their own role. There's a “special circumstances” exception in the UK that entitles the recipient of the notice not to take what is stated at face value, which in this case would apply to heat of the moment dismissals.
In this case, the court of appeal argued that "the 'special circumstances' exception will almost invariably arise in cases where the purported notice has been given orally, in the heat of the moment, by words that may quickly be regretted. Consequently, it will be appropriate in such cases to allow the notice-giver what is in effect a 'cooling-off' period. This would allow those giving notice the opportunity to satisfy the recipient that they never intended to give it in the first place. However, those cases are relatively rare."
Heat of the moment outbursts, resignations, and cases with varying outcomes
In the case of Sothern -v- Frank Charlesly & Co [1981] IRLR 278 it was held that there may be exceptions to the resignation rules as in the case of an immature employee or a decision taken in the heat of the moment which may not in fact be an effective resignation at all. A refusal by the employer to allow the employee to retract or revoke or remain in employment may in those circumstances be deemed a dismissal.
In the case of Barclay v City of Glasgow District Council [1983] IRLR 313 an employee was known to be dependent on his sisters because of his mental deficiency. He had an argument with other employees and asked for his ‘books’. He signed a blank resignation form at the employer’s request, but he reported for work the next day. He was told that he was no longer required and unsuccessfully contended that he had been unfairly dismissed.
Held in normal cases, if unequivocal words of resignation were used, an employer was entitled immediately to accept the resignation and act accordingly. However, there was a duty on employers to consider any special circumstances of an employee. In the present case, the employer should have made inquiries of the sisters and considered the employee’s attendance at work after his supposed resignation, in assessing whether he had intended to resign. Accordingly, the appeal would be allowed.
Both cases are worth reading and employers should be very cautious about accepting heat of the moment resignations as well as making heat of the moment dismissals. Due consideration should always be given to areas of employment law and the overall context looked at when making any decision (such as accepting a resignation or terminating employment).
Need our help with disciplinaries or redundancies?
Call our 24/7 helpline for instant, unlimited advice on disciplinaries, grievances, or redundancies.
To speak to an expert now, call 0818 923 923.
