• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Call us now: 01243 836 840   [email protected]
Pure Employment Law
  • Who We Are
    • Nicola Brown
    • Peter Stevens
    • Elena Elsam
    • David Jones
    • Linda Nye
    • Brenda Cherry
  • For Employers
    • Advice on HR and People issues
    • Investigations, Hearings and Appeals
    • Restructuring and Redundancy
    • Defending Employment Tribunal Claims
    • Dismissal of Senior Executives
    • Contracts, Handbooks and Policies
    • Employment Law Training
  • For Employees
    • Settlement Agreements
    • Workplace Issues including Disciplinary and Grievance
    • Bringing an Employment Tribunal Claim
  • Employment Law Events
  • Legal Updates
  • Testimonials
  • Vacancies
  • Contact us
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Dismissal due to Immigration Status

28th April 2016/in News /by Nicola Brown

It is of course unlawful for an employer to employ someone in the UK who does not have the right to work in the UK, and it would be potentially fair to dismiss an employee who loses their right to work in the UK. But what happens when an employer genuinely believes that an employee has lost the right to work in the UK, but has not got the evidence to prove the immigration status either way? This was the situation in the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of Nayak v Royal Mail (2015).

The facts of the case were a bit complicated, but can be summarised as follows. Mr Nayak started work for Royal Mail in January 2008. At that time he held a visa which expired in April 2009. He was then issued with a post study visa which expired in December 2010. Prior to the expiry of this second visa Mr Nayak applied to the Home Office for a student migrant visa which would have allowed him to continue to work. His initial application was rejected, but he was successful in an appeal to the Immigration Tribunal in May 2011, which passed his application back to the Home Office.

Royal Mail had a policy that in situations where an employee’s visa application was pending, they would carry out employee immigration checks every six months. As part of this policy they wrote to the Home Office in March 2012 to enquire about Mr Nayak’s status, and they were informed that he did have the right to work as he was subject to an outstanding appeal. This satisfied them for the next six months, but they then wrote to Mr Nayak in August 2012, January 2013 and February 2013 asking him to provide updated proof of his right to work in the UK.

Mr Nayak did not respond to any of these letters. He did write to the Home Office in April 2012, but later said he never received a response. In May 2013 Royal Mail again wrote to the Home Office and were told that because Mr Nayak commenced employment prior to immigration rule changes which occurred in February 2008, no further checks were required, provided that document checks had been carried out when the employment commenced, and these were still retained by Royal Mail. Unfortunately, no such document checks had been retained. Royal Mail then made further enquiries of Mr Nayak between December 2013 and May 2014 and it was explained to him that he would only retain the right to work whilst his visa application was pending. It was now four years since the original application had been made, so Royal Mail told Mr Nayak that he had to provide them with evidence of his immigration status, and warned him that if he failed to do so he may be dismissed. A meeting then took place with Mr Nayak in May 2014 and he failed to produce any documents to confirm his right to work in the UK. The decision was then taken to dismiss Mr Nayak.

Mr Nayak brought a claim in the Employment Tribunal claiming unfair dismissal. Royal Mail defended the claim stating that the dismissal was fair. In all cases of unfair dismissal the employer has to show a potentially fair reason for dismissal, and these reasons are set out in legislation. The two which Royal Mail relied on were that to continue to employ Mr Nayak would have been a breach of a statutory restriction, or alternatively that the dismissal was for some other substantial reason justifying dismissal (SOSR). In order for a dismissal to be fair as a breach of a statutory enactment, the employer has to show that there was an actual breach, and Royal Mail were of course unable to do this. However, the Employment Tribunal did hold that the dismissal was fair as being SOSR.

Mr Nayak appealed to the EAT. His appeal was dismissed. The EAT said that it was well established that an employer’s reasonably held belief can amount to SOSR provided that the employer has reasonable evidence to support that belief. In this case they had made enquiries of the Home Office and failed to get a firm answer form them as to Mr Nayak’s immigration status, and had made repeated requests to Mr Nayak which he had largely ignored. In the circumstances, the EAT upheld the Tribunal’s decision that Royal Mail had acted reasonably and found that Royal Mail did hold a genuine belief that Mr Nayak did not have the right to work in the UK.

The facts of this case are very specific to this particular case, but the case is an important reminder that the employer does not necessarily have to prove that an employee is guilty, but must have a genuine belief in the guilt and have made reasonable investigation to justify that belief. In this case the case was about immigration status, but the same principles apply to misconduct cases and to other SOSR situations.

If you would like to talk through a situation you are dealing with, or if you need advice on any aspect of employment law, please contact any member of the Pure Employment Law team (01243 836840 or [email protected]).

Please note that this update is not intended to be exhaustive or be a substitute for legal advice. The application of the law in this area will often depend upon the specific facts and you are advised to seek specific advice on any given scenario.

 

 

Share this article
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg 0 0 Nicola Brown https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg Nicola Brown2016-04-28 09:35:202016-04-29 11:55:32Dismissal due to Immigration Status

Join our mailing list

* = required field
Mailing Lists


Recent Legal Updates

  • What to expect during 2021 – employment law developments 21st January 2021
  • Did “office banter” about an employee’s memory amount to age discrimination? 21st January 2021
  • Update on Furlough 20th January 2021
  • Restricting Restrictive Covenants? 20th January 2021
  • Q&A: What to expect from a remote Tribunal hearing 20th January 2021
Link to: Contact Us

Any questions? Why not get in touch!

Our advice is always given in plain English without any waffle, and we focus on providing practical solutions to our clients’ problems.

Contact us

LEGAL INFORMATION

Pure Employment Law | 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH
[email protected] | Tel: 01243 836840

Pure Employment Law is the trading name of Pure Employment Law Limited, registered in England and Wales with company number 07134294 and whose registered office is 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH. Pure Employment Law Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registration number 533794. A list of the company’s directors is available for inspection at the registered office

DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by Pure Employment Law and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

Privacy Policy | Cookies Policy | Terms & Conditions | How to make a complaint | Sitemap

© Pure Employment Law 2021

Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies as defined in our cookie policy.

Accept Cookie Policy

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refuseing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Google Analytics Cookies

These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.

If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Other cookies

The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only