header-logo header-logo

Rehiring unfairly dismissed employees

21 April 2021
Issue: 7929 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Tribunals
printer mail-detail
Court of Appeal wary of tribunal’s focus on ‘trust & confidence’

It was not practicable for a company to rehire a marketing director as a commercial director in China when the employee did not understand Mandarin, the Court of Appeal has held.

The court upheld the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s (EAT) finding that the employment tribunal erred by ordering the employer to re-engage the claimant in the China role when he did not meet one of the essential requirements and where the employer had a genuine and rational belief that the employee would not be capable of fulfilling the role.

The decision, Kelly v PGA European Tour [2021] EWCA Civ 559, concerned the proper approach to the making of orders for the re-engagement of employees who have been unfairly dismissed.

Dismissing the appeal, Lord Justice Lewis said employment tribunals should follow the approach taken by the EAT in United Lincolnshire NHS Foundation Trust v Farren [2017] ICR 513. ‘The question is whether the employer had a genuine, and rational, belief that the employee had engaged in conduct which had broken the relationship of trust and confidence between the employer and the employee,’ he said.

‘Mere assertion by an employer that it does not believe that the employee would, if re-engaged, be able to meet the demands of the role will be insufficient. But if the employer is able to establish that it genuinely and rationally had such a belief, that will be relevant to, and probably determinative of, the question of whether it is practicable for an employer to comply with an order for re-engagement.’

Lewis LJ said, later in the judgment, that: ‘Furthermore, the employment tribunal was not required to consider vacancies in potentially comparable or suitable employment which had arisen but had been filled prior to the remedies hearing.’

Concurring, Lord Justice Underhill added: ‘I am wary of tribunals becoming too focused on the language of “trust and confidence”, which may carry unhelpful echoes from its use in other contexts… each situation must be judged on its particular facts.’

Issue: 7929 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Tribunals
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll