Charalambous v National Bank of Greece [2023] ICR 1192
Misconduct-based dismissals can be justifiable even when the deciding manager hasn't directly overseen the disciplinary process.
Key Principles that apply in the employment tribunal as derived by the Employment Appeal Tribunal:
Dismissals for misconduct can be viewed as fair, irrespective of whether the decision-making manager conducted the disciplinary hearings.
As per Budgen & Co v Thomas [1976] ICR 344, EAT, there's no strict requirement for a dismissing officer to have direct communication with the affected employee to deem a misconduct dismissal as fair.
The Employment Tribunal can assess the whole procedural approach of a respondent, and any initial procedural lapses can be addressed in later internal appeals.
Facts and Application of the Law:
The claimant, after being dismissed on grounds of misconduct, sought an appeal with the Employment Tribunal. The central issue revolved around the legitimacy of her dismissal, given the fact that the manager who decided on the dismissal wasn't directly involved in the disciplinary proceedings.
The claimant referred to the Budgen & Co v Thomas [1976] ICR 344, EAT, asserting that her dismissal would only be justifiable if there was direct communication between her and the manager. However, this precedent didn't necessitate such a condition.
Upon detailed examination, the Employment Tribunal noted that even if there were certain procedural discrepancies during the initial dismissal, these were addressed adequately in the subsequent internal review which included a meeting with the decision-maker. Thus, based on these findings, the tribunal concluded that the claimant's dismissal was warranted, affirming the decision's legal standing.
This case is a good example for those seeking to appeal from the Employment Tribunal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, of the importance of the ability to properly identify errors of law.
