| tart --> | | | | that no reasonable tribunal would have reached; |
| In Milne v Link Asset Security Company Limited | | | | ▪ Suspension by itself did not constitute a |
| [2005], Mr Milne was employed by Link Asset | | | | breach of implied duty of trust and confidence and |
| Security Company Limited (LASL)from 30 September | | | | ultimately a fundamental breach of an employee's |
| 1999 until 22 December 2003 as a broker and | | | | contract of employment; |
| manager. | | | | ▪ In order to determine whether a |
| Mr Milne was suspended from his job by LASL on 12 | | | | suspension constitutes a breach of the implied duty |
| December 2003, pending a disciplinary hearing on 17 | | | | of trust and confidence, the tribunal must have |
| December 2003. At the disciplinary hearing, issues | | | | considered the surrounding circumstances including |
| which related to Mr Milne's performance and conduct | | | | (i) the reasons for suspension |
| were mentioned but without detail. Mr Milne decided | | | | (ii) the length of suspension |
| not to go to a second proposed meeting on 19 | | | | (iii) whether the employee lost his income |
| December 2003 and instead resigned to avoid the | | | | (iv) whether the employee was replaced; and |
| embarrassment of dismissal. Mr Milne then | | | | (v) whether the contract required the employer to |
| commenced proceedings against LASL for unfair | | | | provide work to the employee; |
| dismissal and breach of his employment contract. | | | | ▪ In this case, the suspension was short, Mr |
| The Employment Tribunal (criticised LASL's decision to | | | | Milne was still in his job, his remuneration was not |
| suspend Mr Milne before the disciplinary hearing, the | | | | affected and LASL was keen to ensure Mr Milne |
| absence of an investigation before the meeting and | | | | stayed. There was therefore no breach of the |
| LASL's failure to allow Mr Milne to state his case. The | | | | implied duty of trust and confidence and Mr Milne had |
| Employment Tribunal however found there was no | | | | not established an overwhelming case that the |
| breach of Mr Milne's contract of employment as a | | | | Employment Tribunal had come to an unreasonable |
| result of his suspension and the way in which the | | | | decision. |
| disciplinary proceedings were conducted. | | | | The appeal was dismissed. |
| Mr Milne appealed on the ground that the | | | | Comment: If you require further information on |
| Employment Tribunal's decision was perverse in that | | | | contracts of employment please contact us. |
| it did not find that LASL was in breach of the | | | | Email: © RT COOPERS, 2006. This Briefing Note |
| contract of employment. | | | | does not provide a comprehensive or complete |
| The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that:- | | | | statement of the law relating to the issues discussed |
| ▪ Mr Milne had to show an overwhelming | | | | nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only |
| case that the Employment Tribunal made a decision | | | | to highlight general issues. |