Post Office v Liddiard

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellee was summarily dismissed by Company A in January 1999 following involvement in football-related violence during an international match in a foreign city. After a three-day hearing, an Employment Tribunal found the dismissal to be unfair and ordered reinstatement, concluding the Appellee had not contributed to the dismissal. Company A's appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal was dismissed. Company A then appealed to this court, contending misdirection and perversity in the Tribunal's decisions.

The Appellee had been employed by Company A since 1986 with an excellent record, working a night shift role with limited public contact. The incident involved violent clashes between football supporters abroad, during which the Appellee admitted to throwing bottles and was subsequently arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment by the foreign court. Despite protesting innocence, the Appellee did not appeal the conviction.

Following widespread media coverage and political condemnation, including statements from the Prime Minister, Company A suspended and charged the Appellee with gross misconduct for bringing the organization into disrepute. The dismissal decision was made by the night shift manager and upheld on appeal within Company A. Both decision-makers denied external pressure to dismiss.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Employment Tribunal misdirected itself in its application of the statutory test for unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
2. Whether the Tribunal’s decision was perverse or unreasonable in concluding that Company A did not act reasonably in dismissing the Appellee for misconduct.
3. Whether the 'band of reasonable responses' test was correctly applied or misapplied by the Tribunal in assessing the fairness of the dismissal.
4. Whether the Appellee’s conduct, conviction abroad, and associated press coverage justified summary dismissal by Company A.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Employment Tribunal misdirected itself by failing to apply the established 'band of reasonable responses' test as set out in binding precedent.
• The Tribunal improperly substituted its own view of what Company A should have done for the employer’s judgment.
• The Tribunal erred in concluding that the dismissal was unreasonable given the Appellee’s conduct and the resulting reputational damage to Company A.

Appellee's Arguments

• The Tribunal correctly applied the statutory test by assessing whether Company A acted reasonably in dismissing the Appellee for misconduct.
• Company A’s reputation was not materially harmed as the Appellee had no public contact and press interest had waned by the time of dismissal.
• The Appellee’s excellent employment record and the questionable nature of the foreign conviction supported the conclusion that dismissal was unfair.
• Human rights arguments relating to no punishment without law, respect for private life, and peaceful enjoyment of possessions were raised but not pursued in depth.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the statutory framework governing unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, focusing on whether Company A acted reasonably in dismissing the Appellee for misconduct. It considered the historical development of the 'band of reasonable responses' test, reaffirming its binding authority as established in Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones and rejecting the contrary approach in Haddon v Van den Bergh Foods.

The Tribunal found the reason for dismissal was conduct-related, meeting the statutory requirement. However, the court found that the Tribunal likely misapplied the law by not explicitly addressing whether the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses and by substituting its own view for that of the employer. The Tribunal's reasoning was criticised for focusing on political and media pressure rather than directly on whether the conduct and resulting reputational harm justified dismissal.

The court accepted that reliance on the foreign criminal conviction by Company A was reasonable and that the Appellee’s denial did not require further investigation by the employer. It also noted that the Tribunal’s conclusion that the real reason for dismissal was political pressure was flawed, as the press coverage and reputational concerns were a direct consequence of the Appellee’s conduct.

Given these errors, the court concluded that none of the Tribunal’s findings could stand and that the Employment Appeal Tribunal should have allowed Company A’s appeal. Nonetheless, the court declined to decide the case outright, reasoning that the ultimate determination of reasonableness was a matter for rehearing by an Employment Tribunal.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL by Company A and ordered that the unfair dismissal claim be remitted for rehearing by a different Employment Tribunal.

This decision overturns the prior rulings of the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal but does not establish new precedent beyond reaffirming the binding nature of the 'band of reasonable responses' test. The case underscores the necessity for tribunals to apply the correct legal framework and to focus on the employer’s reasonableness in dismissing for misconduct, particularly where reputational damage is alleged. The rehearing will require a fresh assessment of whether Company A’s dismissal of the Appellee was within the range of reasonable responses.