The law states that employers have to have a fair reason for dismissal and must act reasonably in treating that as a sufficient reason to dismiss their employee. In Jinadu v Docklands Buses, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that employers do not have to put a disciplinary investigation on hold until they deal with an employee’s grievances even if the individual is at risk of dismissal.
Basic facts
Following complaints from a car driver to a supervisor for Docklands Buses, Ms Jinadu was told that her driving was below an acceptable standard. She was instructed to have a driving assessment at the company’s in-house training centre but she refused to attend. She was then suspended and as she continued to refuse to attend, she was dismissed for gross misconduct.
Ms Jinadu appealed on the ground that her employer had discriminated against her, although she subsequently withdrew these allegations. She then indicated that she would attend the training centre and the appeal was adjourned to allow her to do so. She attended the corrective training but failed the assessment. As a result, the appeal was reconvened. At that meeting she set out complaints against two of her managers as well as various complaints of discrimination. However, these were rejected and she was dismissed on the ground that she had failed to display a satisfactory driving standard and that her dismissal was in the interest of public safety. Ms Jinadu claimed unfair dismissal.
Tribunal decision
As Ms Jinadu had been dismissed for a potentially fair reason, the tribunal had to consider whether her employer had acted reasonably in treating that as a sufficient reason to dismiss her. It concluded that dismissal lay within the band of reasonable responses that a reasonable employer might have adopted, as Ms Jinadu had repeatedly refused to obey a reasonable instruction - to attend the driving school. She had also actively provoked her manager by saying that she would not attend, even if she were dismissed.
Ms Jinadu appealed on the basis that her employer should have suspended the disciplinary procedure to deal with her grievances; and that another manager should have been involved in the disciplinary process given her complaints against her two managers.
EAT decision
The EAT held that the tribunal was right to make the findings and reach the conclusions that it had in relation to the employer’s alleged breaches of procedure. It also rejected Ms Jinadu’s argument that her employer should have put the disciplinary investigation on hold until they had dealt with her grievances. Nor was there any reason why her managers should not have been involved, even though she had raised grievances against them.
However, it allowed the appeal on another point - which was that the tribunal had failed to identify whether she had been dismissed for conduct or capability. On the face of it, the reason for dismissing her related to her poor driving and therefore her capability. According to the bus company’s own procedures, drivers are only at risk of dismissal if they fail an assessment twice after corrective training. As Ms Jinadu had only been allowed one opportunity to take the test, her appeal succeeded and the case was remitted to the tribunal to identify the reason for dismissal.