Interim Relief in Unfair Dismissal: London City Airport Ltd v. Chacko

Introduction

London City Airport Ltd v. Chacko ([2013] IRLR 610) is a pivotal case adjudicated by the United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal on March 22, 2013. The dispute arose when Mr. Philip Chacko, employed as a Ramp Service Agent by London City Airport Ltd, claimed unfair dismissal. He asserted that his termination was rooted in his active trade union activities, an allegation the employer vehemently denied. Seeking interim relief under section 161 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, Mr. Chacko aimed to have his employment terms maintained pending the final resolution of his unfair dismissal claim. The Employment Judge granted this interim relief, a decision that London City Airport Ltd appealed, leading to this comprehensive legal examination.

Summary of the Judgment

The Employment Judge initially granted Mr. Chacko interim relief, mandating London City Airport Ltd to continue his remuneration as if his employment terms remained intact until the final hearing. The judge based this decision on several factors, including the timing of the dismissal following Mr. Chacko's involvement in union activities, inconsistencies in the employer's disciplinary and grievance processes, and discrepancies in the sanctions imposed on Mr. Chacko compared to other employees. London City Airport Ltd appealed this decision, contending that the Employment Judge misapplied legal standards and failed to adequately consider evidence supporting the employer's claim of misconduct as the true reason for dismissal. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the Employment Judge's decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming the interim relief in favor of Mr. Chacko.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Employment Judge and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) referenced several key precedents that significantly influenced the court's decision:

Taplin v C Shippam Ltd [1978] ICR 1068: Established that the threshold for interim relief requires an employee to demonstrate a "pretty good chance" of succeeding in their claim, a standard higher than a mere balance of probabilities.
Dandpat v University of Bath [2009] UKEAT/0408/2009: Confirmed the applicability of the Taplin standard, reinforcing that interim relief should only be granted when there is substantial evidence supporting the employee's claim.
Derby Daily Telegraph v Foss [1991] UKEAT/631/91: Supported the notion that claims asserting the need to be a "potential winner" are valid grounds for interim relief.
Hajiannou v Coral Casinos Ltd [1981] IRLR 352 & Paul v East Surrey District Health Authority [1995] IRLR 305: Discussed the dangers of applying facts from one case to another, emphasizing the need for careful, case-specific analysis.
Yeboah: Highlighted the high threshold required to establish perversity in judicial decisions, particularly in summary applications for interim relief.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on the interpretation and application of section 161 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which allows for interim relief in cases of unfair dismissal related to trade union activities. The key aspects of the legal reasoning included:

Threshold for Interim Relief: The court reaffirmed the Taplin standard, requiring that the claimant demonstrate a "pretty good chance" of success in the ultimate unfair dismissal hearing. This standard ensures that interim relief is not granted lightly, given its significant financial implications for the employer.
Assessment of Evidence: The Employment Judge meticulously weighed the evidence, including the timing of the dismissal following union activity, inconsistencies in disciplinary and grievance handling, and discrepancies in sanctions compared to other employees. This holistic assessment supported the likelihood that Mr. Chacko's dismissal was linked to his trade union activities.
Role of Employment Judges: Emphasized that employment judges are better positioned than appellate courts to assess the merits of interim relief applications, given their extensive experience with similar cases. The Transfer of Trust to Employment Judges was highlighted as a foundational principle.
Non-rehearing on Appeal: The appellate tribunal maintained that appeals on interim relief are restricted to points of law rather than fact, limiting the scope for re-examining the detailed evidence presented at the initial hearing.

Impact

The judgment in London City Airport Ltd v. Chacko has several significant implications for employment law and the handling of interim relief in unfair dismissal cases:

Reaffirmation of the Taplin Standard: By upholding the Taplin criteria, the judgment clarifies that interim relief remains a high threshold remedy, ensuring that only claims with substantial merit receive such provisional protection.
Guidance for Employment Judges: The case provides a clear framework for employment judges in assessing interim relief applications, particularly emphasizing the balance between the claimant's likelihood of success and the employer's potential prejudice.
Strengthening Trade Union Protections: Affirming that trade union activities are a protected ground for unfair dismissal reinforces the legal safeguards for employee representation and collective bargaining efforts.
Precedent for Future Appeals: The dismissal of the appeal underscores the limited grounds on which appellate tribunals will overturn Employment Judges' decisions regarding interim relief, thereby instilling confidence in the tribunal's expertise.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The judgment involves several intricate legal concepts, which can be distilled for better understanding:

Interim Relief: A provisional measure allowing an employee to receive continuation of pay and benefits while an unfair dismissal claim is pending. This ensures that the employee is not financially disadvantaged during the dispute.
Section 161 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992: Provides the legal basis for granting interim relief to employees who claim dismissal due to their involvement in trade union activities.
Pretty Good Chance: A legal standard requiring that an employee must demonstrate a significant likelihood of success in their unfair dismissal claim to qualify for interim relief.
Perversity: A legal principle where a court finds that a lower court's decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable judge could have arrived at it. The threshold for establishing perversity is deliberately high to respect the initial judge's discretion.
Comparator Exercise: Assessing whether the sanction imposed on an employee is consistent with how similar cases have been handled within the organization. This helps determine if the disciplinary action was fair and non-discriminatory.

Conclusion

The judgment in London City Airport Ltd v. Chacko serves as a critical touchstone in employment law, particularly concerning the granting of interim relief in unfair dismissal cases linked to trade union activities. By upholding the Employment Judge's decision, the Employment Appeal Tribunal reinforced the stringent standards required for such relief, ensuring that only claims with a robust likelihood of success receive financial protection pending the final adjudication. The case also underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting trade union rights, balancing the interests of both employees and employers. Moving forward, this judgment provides clear guidance for employment tribunals and appellate bodies, emphasizing meticulous evidence assessment and adherence to established legal precedents.