| In October 2006, the case of Letherbarrow v | | | | genuineness. He had made it clear that the allegations |
| Kindergarten UK Ltd [2006] came before the | | | | leading to his dismissal had been linked to the |
| Employment Tribunal. An employee and his wife had | | | | breakdown of his marriage. In such circumstances the |
| both been directors and co-owners of the employer | | | | Tribunal should have adopted a different procedure. |
| company. The employee's wife was the majority | | | | The appeal was allowed. The EAT ruled:- |
| shareholder, although she was an employee as well. | | | | * that the Tribunal had not heard evidence from the |
| The employee's marriage with his wife broke down. | | | | parties before reaching its decision. |
| He was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct on | | | | * As the employee had made allegations concerning |
| 10 September 2005. A number of issues relating to | | | | the impropriety of the proceedings brought by the |
| his conduct were complained of, the most material of | | | | employer, the case was not suitable for the |
| which was the allegation that on 7 September he had | | | | summary procedure used by the Tribunal. |
| taken the sum of £600 from the employers | | | | * The tribunal should have considered that even |
| safe without consent. He appealed against his | | | | though the taking of the sum of £600 from |
| dismissal but was unsuccessful. The employee then | | | | the safe could have amounted to gross misconduct, |
| began Tribunal proceeding on the grounds that he | | | | the employee may not have needed permission to |
| had been unfairly and wrongfully dismissed. | | | | do so as he was a director of the employer |
| At a pre-hearing review, the Tribunal struck out the | | | | company. |
| employee's two claims on the grounds that they had | | | | * Furthermore, the Tribunal had neglected to consider |
| no reasonable prospect of success. From the | | | | the procedural fairness of the dismissal. |
| answers given to the Tribunal by the employee, the | | | | Under the above circumstances, the Tribunal had |
| Tribunal adduced that he had in fact taken the | | | | erred in striking out the employee's claim. The EAT |
| £600, an act which clearly amounted to gross | | | | ruled that the should be heard before a fresh tribunal |
| misconduct, and that therefore his dismissal had been | | | | for reconsideration. |
| within the reasonable range of responses available to | | | | © RT COOPERS, 2006. This Briefing Note does |
| the employer. The employee appealed to the | | | | not provide a comprehensive or complete statement |
| Employment Appeals Tribunal ("EAT"). | | | | of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it |
| The employee argued that the Tribunal had erred in | | | | constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight |
| taking for granted the employer's reason for his | | | | general issues. |
| dismissal, especially as the employee had disputed its | | | | |