Mrs S Scofield v Mr M Tolley (England and Wales : Unfair Dismissal)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Claimant was dismissed by the Respondent for some other substantial reason related to concerns about the care provided to a third party. The Employment Tribunal initially found the dismissal unfair due to procedural failings, awarding the Claimant a basic award and a compensatory award. The Respondent appealed, challenging the unfair dismissal finding and arguing that the compensatory award should be reduced due to the Claimant’s conduct contributing to the dismissal. A higher court remitted the issue of contributory fault reduction for reconsideration. The matter was subsequently dealt with on paper with submissions from both parties regarding the extent of the Claimant’s contribution to the dismissal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the dismissal was unfair despite the procedural failings identified by the Tribunal.
2. Whether the compensatory award should be reduced under section 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 due to the Claimant’s conduct contributing to the dismissal.
3. If a reduction is warranted, what is the appropriate proportion of reduction to the compensatory award.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Claimant’s conduct did not influence or contribute to the dismissal as the decision was not based on comments made at the disciplinary hearing.
• The relationship between colleagues had not broken down, undermining the Respondent’s assertion that the Claimant’s conduct was causative.

Appellee's Arguments

• The Claimant’s conduct, specifically advancing a defence accusing colleagues of dishonesty and collusion, was a significant factor leading to dismissal.
• By authorising the defence, the Claimant’s conduct was culpable and effectively sealed her dismissal.
• The Tribunal’s original findings supported a conclusion that the Claimant’s conduct contributed to the dismissal and justified a reduction of the compensatory award.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the issue of contributory fault by reference to the original Tribunal’s findings. It emphasized that section 123(6) ERA requires a causative link between the employee’s conduct and the dismissal, where the conduct need only be a contributing factor, not the sole cause. The court found that the Claimant’s conduct in advancing a defence accusing colleagues of dishonesty was blameworthy and contributed to the breakdown of the working relationship, which was a factor in the dismissal. The court distinguished between the reason for dismissal and the fairness of dismissal, focusing on the conduct’s contribution to the dismissal itself. The court rejected the argument that the Claimant’s conduct did not influence the dismissal and concluded that the Claimant did contribute to her own dismissal. However, the contribution was not total, as the original concerns about care standards remained a significant factor.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the compensatory award must be reduced by 70% to reflect the Claimant’s contributory fault under section 123(6) ERA 1996, resulting in a compensatory award of £105.98 payable by the Respondent.

Holding: The compensatory award is reduced by 70% due to the Claimant’s contributory conduct.

Implications: This decision directly affects the amount payable to the Claimant but does not establish new legal precedent. It clarifies the application of contributory fault principles in cases where dismissal arises from multiple factors including employee conduct and other substantial reasons.