• 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

“No reasonable employer would have dismissed this employee”

30th July 2015/in News /by Nicola Brown

In a recent decision the Court of Appeal considered the case of Newbound v Thames Water Utilities Limited in which Mr Newbound had worked for Thames Water for 34 years until he was dismissed for gross misconduct.

Mr Newbound’s claim that he was unfairly dismissed had succeeded at the Employment Tribunal (although the Tribunal found he had contributed to his dismissal by 40%). Thames Water appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The EAT allowed the appeal, however Mr Newbound then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Mr Newbound’s job involved inspecting penstock valves, which opened and closed sewers. He and his manager had a discussion about an annual inspection at a particular site. They agreed the date of the inspection and that full breathing apparatus would be available. On the day of the inspection, Mr Newbound, his manager and a contractor, met and went through the safe system of work form together. The manager made it clear that both the contractor and Mr Newbound were to use the breathing apparatus.

When arriving for the inspection, Mr Newbound and the contractor met with the ‘competent person in charge’ at the site. They both entered the sewer without wearing the breathing apparatus. When another manager realised that they had breached procedure, he contacted the next level manager who told him to prepare a report. An investigation took place, followed by a disciplinary procedure on the basis that Mr Newbound was one of the most senior employees involved, he had led the contractor into the sewer and as such should face gross misconduct allegations.

Mr Newbound admitted that he had entered the sewer without breathing apparatus. He said had used his experience in deciding whether to use the breathing apparatus, as he had done in the past. He also argued that he had not been trained in how to complete the safe system of work form. He was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. He appealed against his dismissal, but the decision to dismiss him was upheld.

Applying the legal test, the dismissal was potentially fair if at the time of the dismissal Thames Water believed Mr Newbound to be guilty of misconduct, had reasonable grounds for believing that he was guilty of that misconduct and had carried out a reasonable investigation. The Tribunal then had to consider whether the decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer in the circumstances, without substituting its own view for that of the employer.This is known as the ‘band of reasonable responses’ test and our regular readers will know it is a common feature of unfair dismissal case law.

In this case, the Employment Tribunal judge held that no reasonable employer would have dismissed Mr Newbound in the circumstances, and his length of service and clean disciplinary record had not been given sufficient weight. The judge also found that it had not been explained to Mr Newbound that failure to wear the breathing apparatus would lead to disciplinary action. Mr Newbound had relied on his own experience to decide whether to use breathing apparatus and this had not led to disciplinary action in the past.

The Employment Tribunal judge also found that the dismissal was unfair because of the disparity in treatment between Mr Newbound who was dismissed for gross misconduct and the ‘compentent person in charge’ at the site, who had received a written warning and had to undergo training. Mr Newbound had not been interviewed as part of the investigation whereas the ‘competent person in charge’ had. The disparity in their treatment could not be justified.

When Thames Water appealed to the EAT, the EAT found that the Employment Tribunal judge had substituted his own views for those of the employer. However the Court of Appeal held that the band of reasonable responses is not infinitely wide, and the Employment Tribunal judge was entitled to find that no reasonable employer would have dismissed Mr Newbound in the circumstances. Therefore, the Tribunal’s finding of unfair dismissal could stand.

This case highlights that it is important that employers ensure that employees are informed about and trained on procedures. Employers should carefully consider how they treat different employees in relation to the same disciplinary incident and how their treatment of the employee compares with how they have dealt with employees in similar circumstances in the past, and be prepared to justify any difference in treatment. If in doubt as to whether a dismissal may fall within the band of reasonable responses, it is always worth taking advice to get an independent view on the appropriateness of the penalty in the circumstances. We are experienced at advising on disciplinary cases of all kinds and a quick call to us can save you becoming embroiled in a costly dispute.

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 Brown2015-07-30 22:18:222015-07-30 22:20:38“No reasonable employer would have dismissed this employee”

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