Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Wincanton Group plc v Stone (formerly known as Joyce) and Gregory [2012]
Wincanton Group plc v Stone (formerly known as Joyce) and Gregory [2012]
Published on: 30/11/2012
Issues Covered:
Dismissal
Article Authors
The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Background
Both claimants were employed as drivers by the respondent, each of whom had received a written warning for failure to obey a reasonable management instruction. The claimants insisted that they were entitled to act as they did under their contracts.Mr Stone received a written warning for misconduct in November 2009. Within the currency of that warning, he committed another disciplinary offence of a different type, one which could have been dealt with by way of final warning. The respondent instead dismissed him, arguing that the first written warning had made the difference between a final warning and dismissal.The Employment Tribunal held that Mr Stone‟s dismissal was unfair, as the first written warning was for a different type of conduct than that for which he had been dismissed. The Tribunal held that the first matter should instead have been held in abeyance as there were disciplinary proceedings under way in respect of it. The Tribunal also held that Mr Stone‟s action on the earlier occasion was could not be considered culpable misconduct in the circumstances known and reasonably believed by him at the time, arising as it did from an unresolved difference of opinion regarding the terms of his contract.Upholding the employer‟s appeal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal held that the Tribunal had not followed guidance from earlier cases and that it had substituted its own approach for that of the employer. The Tribunal‟s approach to material facts was also criticised. The second claimant was convicted of drink driving and was disqualified from driving; he therefore could no longer drive for the respondent. The Employment Tribunal held that this dismissal was also unfair. It held that the employer had not behaved reasonably when it assured the employee that it would search for other employment for him, which it failed to do, and then by informing him that he would be dismissed but could apply for positions with the firm on the same basis as an external applicant.The EAT dismissed the second appeal. There had been no appeal against the ET‟s assumption that there exists a duty by an employer to take reasonable steps to find an alternative position for an employee dismissed in such circumstances, an assumption that the EAT considered to be highly arguable. Because of that, and the findings of fact which it had been within the ET‟s power to make, the EAT dismissed the appeal.http://bit.ly/10daj3I
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Already a subscriber?
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
Disclaimer
The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article.
This article is correct at 30/11/2012
Recent Case Law
Morais v Ryanair DAC [2025]
21/01/2025
B (Trading as C) v A [2025]
21/01/2025
Duployen v Whyte & Mackay Ltd [2025]
14/01/2025
Q&A
How to handle it
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you
Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users.
Learn more →
