The appellant teacher (A) brought proceedings for Unfair Dismissal against the local authority (B). This claim was rejected and A appealed the decision. A was dismissed at the end of 2006 for alleged misconduct between November 2005 and February 2006. A had been given a prior final written warning by B, issued by it on February 10, 2005. The warning was given in relation to alleged misconduct by D on October 8, 2004 during a lesson. Subsequent to the waning A was suspended and an investigation and period of suspension followed. B informed A that the warning was to remain on her record for 24 months. Upon return to work, A commenced proceedings internally to appeal the decision of Disciplinary Hearing and the issue of the warning.

Her Unfair Dismissal claim was rejected Dismissal in the circumstances of misconduct was deemed a reasonable response. The issue of the warning letter was necessary to initiate the dismissal and so the dismissal was fair. The local authority accepted that, absent the final warning, it would not have dismissed D. A argued on appeal that the final written warning should be regarded as void as B failed to consider evidence to support that the alleged misconduct did not take place. The appeal was dismissed.

It was held that an employer could rely on a final warning when there were

(1)prima facie grounds on which to justify giving the warning,

(2) when it is given in good faith and

(3) when it is not patently unsuitable to issue a warning.

The guiding principle was whether it was reasonable for the employer to treat the conduct reason, in conjunction with the circumstance of the final written warning, as sufficient to dismiss the claimant. It was not the function of the Tribunal to decide whether the final warning was valid. The function of the tribunal was to apply the test of reasonableness – was the final warning, in the particular circumstances, sufficient for a reasonable employer to take into account when considering dismissal of an employee for misconduct. http://bit.ly/165XOtW