• 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
Scales of Justice image

The importance of equal treatment

30th September 2018/in News /by Nicola Brown

No, I don’t mean equal treatment in terms of discrimination and the Equality Act (although that is important too of course!), but rather the importance of consistency when dealing with disciplinary issues.

Common sense says that if you have more than one person misbehaving in a similar manner then, in the absence of any good reason not to, any disciplinary sanction should be the same. Treating different employees differently for committing the same or similar acts of misconduct has always been one of the factors which an Employment Tribunal will look at when deciding whether or not a dismissal was unfair. As part of considering the reasonableness of the decision it is not necessarily enough to show that the sanction merited dismissal, the sanction also needs to ‘fit’ with the approach the employer has taken in dealing with issues with other employees.

This principle was illustrated quite dramatically in the recent case of Doy v Clays Limited. Mr Doy had been employed by Clays Limited since 2004. He raised issues about how he should be paid for working night shifts, and his queries were answered by his line managers, Mr Smith and Mr Bullen, in a letter which Mr Doy received on 14 April 2016. When Mr Doy arrived for his night shift that evening, he told colleagues that “he hoped that his line managers died” and that “he may have to kill them and he hoped that their children got cancer and died.” Not surprisingly, his employers took this seriously and suspended Mr Doy on full pay pending an investigation. Mr Doy then was signed off with stress.

A disciplinary meeting was scheduled, but before this took place Mr Doy handed in another sick note to an administrator and told her “I will expose this company to the media and on social media. I will show them how corrupt this company is.” He added that he would “find out where Bullen lives and go and tell his missus what kind of a bloke he really is.” When Mr Bullen heard of these threats he decided to move his family out of their family home.

Soon after this encounter a disciplinary hearing was conducted, at which Mr Doy was dismissed for gross misconduct. Mr Doy brought a claim of unfair dismissal, arguing amongst other things that he had been treated more harshly than other employees. His claim was dismissed by the Tribunal. Mr Doy appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), again on the grounds that he had been treated more harshly than other employees in similar circumstances. He gave examples of an alleged incident where during an altercation between two employees one said: “Who are you going to kill next in your car?” to which the other answered “I hope your next wife”. He also alleged that the same shift manager had seen one woman punch a colleague in the face before hitting another weeks later. Mr. Doy claimed that none of the employees in these alleged incidents had been dismissed.

The EAT held that the Employment Tribunal which had dismissed Mr. Doy’s claim for unfair dismissal had not adequately investigated whether there was a disparity in the way the company had treated him when compared to other employees. They therefore ordered that the case should be reheard by a different Tribunal. It may well be that the new Tribunal will conclude that Mr. Doy was fairly dismissed, but the case is a good illustration of how employers can pay a heavy price for allegedly treating employees inconsistently. Even though they may ultimately be found not to have unfairly dismissed Mr. Doy, the very fact that they had to go through two Tribunal hearings and an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal should be enough incentive to ensure that they can demonstrate that they treat employees consistently.

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/scales-of-justice.jpg 414 414 Nicola Brown https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg Nicola Brown2018-09-30 13:02:502019-02-06 17:02:39The importance of equal treatment

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