Re-engagement can be refused if working relationship harmed
Case 3: The facts
Mr Wolff was unfairly dismissed from his position as a teacher at an academy school owned by academy chain Oasis Community Group. He applied for re-engagement at another Oasis academy anywhere in the UK.
Oasis resisted, arguing that re-engagement was not “practicable”. They said that the personal attacks made by Wolff against his employer and ex-colleagues during the disciplinary and tribunal process had left mutual trust and confidence damaged beyond repair.
The tribunal disagreed and made a re-engagement order at a school located 200 miles away from his former workplace. However, Oasis appealed.
The ruling
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) refused to overturn the tribunal’s re-engagement order.
The EAT agreed that a reinstatement or re-engagement order can be refused on the basis of “practicality” where an employee’s behaviour when conducting litigation has soured the working relationship making it impossible to work together again. But in this case, re-engagement was to a school 200 miles away and there was scope for the parties to put the dispute behind them.
Commentary
Re-engagement orders are rare. It is not unusual for unrepresented claimants to make virulent personal allegations amid the anger and stress of a claim for unfair dismissal.
Reps can help by reminding members that too much anger directed towards their ex-employer in the litigation can result in an order for re-engagement being refused even if the claim is successful.
Oasis Community Learning v Wolff [2013] UKEAT/0364/12/MC