Unfair Dismissal Investigation
by Liam
In Millbrook v Jefferson, the EAT give detailed consideration to an employers investigation in a claim of unfair dismissal of an employee with 20 years’ service following two remarks which were alleged to be racist and bring the company in to disrepute.
The employee admitted making the remarks and claimed that the remarks were flippant - not racist. As the employee admitted the remarks, the employer did not interview all relevant witnesses that were present when the remarks were made. The Tribunal decided the employer should have interviewed all the witnesses to the remarks and in not doing so failed to carry out a proper investigation. The EAT accepted that if the employer took the view that the remarks were made flippantly, as this was admitted by the employee there was nothing to be gained from interviewing the witnesses. However, if the employer took the view the remarks were not made flippantly, it should have interviewed the witnesses in order to gain relevant evidence as to the context of the remarks. The EAT also added that the employer might impose a lesser sanction if the remarks were made flippantly rather than with racist intent and it was therefore relevant as to whether the remarks were flippant or racist.
The lesson from this case is that unless an employer receives a full admission that completely fits in with its belief as to what happened, all relevant witnesses should be interviewed to avoid a finding that the investigation was inadequate.
Similar Posts: