UNFAIR DISMISSAL SHOULD NOT IMPEDE EMPLOYERS

It is important that the operation of the legislation in relation to unfair dismissal should not impede employers unreasonably in the efficient management of their business, which must be in the intersts of all Phillips J in Cook v Thomas Linnell and Sons Ltd 1977.

It is important that the operation of the legislation in relation to unfair dismissal should not impede employers unreasonably in the efficient management of their business, which must be in the intersts of all Phillips J in Cook v Thomas Linnell and Sons Ltd 1977.

The Cook v Thomas Linnell and Sons Ltd 1977 case relates to one particular incident. Justifiable dismissal is not limited to one event, it may arise out of a series of events. In Cook V Thomas Linnell & Sons Ltd (82) the EAT considered that "... When responsible employers genuinely come to the conclusion that over a reasonable period of time a manager is incompetent, we think that it is some evidence that he is incompetent. In the above dictum, Phillips J. did say "unless there are wholly exceptional circumstances".

In ordinary industrial relationships of employer and employee, where no special circumstances exist, an employer who is thinking of dismissing an employee on grounds of ill-health will be acting unreasonably if he dismisses the employee without taking the guidance given by Phillips J. (above). However, where the relationship between employer and employee is exceptional and of a special nature, as it was in Leonard's case (above), Phillips J's observations would be irrelevant. Leonard was not a case in which the employers were considering the employee's dismissal on mere general grounds of ill-health; it was a case where the employers decided to dismiss the employee under a special contract of employment because this latter had failed to meet an essential requirement of the contract of employment. being undertaken as a separate exercise, it should however be noted that the employee himself may sometimes participate in the actual investigation as he may be the key person able to shed light on the alleged misconduct. In these circumstances, the procedure whereby the employee must be given a say is fused with the investigation. Where the employee is caught in the act of stealing his employer's property instant dismissal without an opportunity to explain could be considered as fair. In Carr V Alexander Russell (238) the dismissal was fair when the employee was not only caught stealing, but he neither made any protestation of innocence nor did he implement the grievance procedure.( In Dunn V Pochin (Contractors) Ltd (181) Browne-Wilkinson J. said "Before an employee is dismissed, an employer has to satisfy himself by proper investigation as to the facts of the matter and the nature of the employee's conduct. In the ordinary case, such investigation will necessarily involve finding out from the employee himself what is his account of the matter, his explanation of the events that occurred and any mitigating factors there may ...