The recent EAT case of Zimmer v Brezan reminds employers that although the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedures are being repealed in April, they still have plenty of life in them yet!
Mr Brezan was found to have been automatically unfairly dismissed because the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedure was not followed. This was because there had been a failure to comply with step 1 as the invitation to a disciplinary meeting did not indicate that there was a potential case of gross misconduct and it did not indicate that dismissal was a risk of the meeting.
The EAT stated that unless the employee is enabled to understand from the step 1 letter that he is at risk of dismissal, the purpose of the step 1 letter in a dismissal case cannot be properly achieved. The employee is entitled to have some idea what type of sanction is in the mind of the employer or, at least, in a dismissal case, that dismissal is in the mind of the employer, so that he knows the potential extent of what it is that he may be facing when, armed with the information given to him by the step 1 letter, he goes to the step 2 meeting. This decision was reached notwithstanding the absence of any such requirement in the relevant law itself.
The requirement for the current "three step process" where a dismissal procedure has yet to start will be repealed taking effect from 6 April 2009. However, the three step process must be followed through by an employer if they have sent a dismissal letter by 5 April 2009. These transitional provisions are intended to allow the employee recourse if the dismissal process is underway during the changeover in statutory requirements.
New ACAS guidelines will apply instead for dismissal procedures started from 6 April 2009.
This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq
Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.
The original publication date for this article was 16/02/2009.