Many organisations have employees working at their client's locations. Sometimes the client decides they don't want one of them on site anymore. Back in July we gave an overview about how an employer should react. An employment appeals tribunal case,
Greenwood v Whiteghyll Plastics Limited, further illustrates and re-inforces what an employer should do to ensure that any subsequent dismissal is seen as fair.
Whiteghyll Plastics is a shopfitting business, with a number of major customers including Morrison's Supermarkets. Mr Greenwood was employed by Whiteghyll and carried out shop-fitting at Morrison's.
Whiteghyll received three complaints about Mr Greenwood's work from Morrison's. As a result Morrison's told Whiteghyll that they did not want Mr Greenwood on their site.
Whiteghyll considered whether there was alternative work available for Mr Greenwood at other locations, with other clients, but found that there was none. The business had recently made some employees redundant.
Whiteghyll went through its dismissal procedure and dismissed Mr Greenwood for "some other substantial reason". Mr Greenwood claimed unfair dismissal.
The employment tribunal found that there was a fair reason for the dismissal, namely "some other substantial reason", and that Whiteghyll had followed a fair procedure, (with the exception that they had not shown Mr Greenwood correspondence between the Company and Morrison's regarding the situation, however this was corrected at the appeal hearing), accepted that there was no alternative work and had acted fairly in dismissing for that reason. The tribunal said that Morrison's was an important client that had the "whip hand" such that Whiteghyll had very little choice in the matter. They also accepted that Mr Greenwood appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
While the EAT accepted that there was a potentially fair reason for dismissal, namely pressure from an important client, it said that the tribunal had failed to go on to consider the nature and extent of the injustice caused to the employee as a result of the dismissal. This requires consideration of matters such as length of service, performance record and how hard it will be for the employee to find another job. The EAT went on to say that if the employer finds that there is serious injustice to the employee, it should consider ways of alleviating the injustice. The EAT remitted the case back to a different tribunal for a re-hearing to consider the injustice point.
Ensure you cover all the key points:
-
The proper statutory dismissal procedure must be followed
-
Employer must consider alternative options (other available work).
-
Employer must consider the extent of the injustice (length of service, disciplinary record etc.).
-
If there is a perceived injustice, the employer must consider ways of alleviating that injustice. This could include approaching the client to see if there are alternative solutions. If this is not an option can the employee be exchanged with another employee working for a different client?
Following the above will better ensure that any dismissal at the behest of a customer can be a fair reason for a dismissal.
For more information on this particular issue or for advice and guidance on any tricky HR matter than is concerning you, contact Lynne at lynne@hradvantage.co.uk or call her on 01494 451681.
