Modified dismissal procedure

Case 2: The facts

A day after Mr O’Neil argued with his manager on the telephone, he was dismissed with no prior warning and no meeting. The manager said O’Neil had sworn at him and had committed an act of gross insubordination which amounted to gross misconduct.

The ruling

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) said a tribunal had been wrong to say O’Neil’s dismissal was fair when the employer had not carried out an investigation. It had also been wrong to say that the modified dismissal and disciplinary procedure (DDP), which does not require the employer to hold a meeting, applied – the modified DDP applies only if the dismissal takes place at the time of the misconduct or “immediately thereafter”, but O’Neil had not been dismissed until a day after his alleged misconduct.

The tribunal had made a number of errors in reaching its decision, the EAT said, and the case was sent to a different tribunal for a re-hearing.