The case of Mr Doy v Clays Limited considers inconsistent treatment of employees and, in particular, the fairness of an employee’s dismissal.
Mr Doy had worked for Clays Limited since 2004 on a casual basis, working 1,695 hours a year and received an annual salary. He was required to work more hours in some weeks than others and paid at two different rates, depending on his shifts.
Following a dispute which arose in 2016 in respect of his pay, it was alleged that a couple of incidents of threatening behaviour by Mr Doy towards his general manager occurred. The general manager had been so concerned by the threats that he had moved his wife and children out of his home. Clays investigated into the allegations and subsequently dismissed Mr Doy for gross misconduct.
Mr Doy brought a claim for unfair dismissal in the tribunal, alleging that there was a disparity in the treatment he received compared to other employees. He gave examples of other employees who had made much worse comments to managers and cited one occasion when a female employee had punched a manager.
The Employment Tribunal was satisfied that the reason for dismissal was due to Mr Doy’s conduct, that the employer had conducted a reasonable investigation and had reasonable grounds for believing Mr Doy had acted in the alleged manner. As such, they found that the decision to dismiss was reasonable in all the circumstances.
Mr Doy appealed the decision on the ground that the tribunal had not considered his argument that he had been unfairly dismissed because he had been treated differently from a female employee who was not disciplined for incidents involving physical violence.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded that the tribunal had not considered Mr Doy’s disparity argument and had erred in doing so. As such, the matter was referred back to the tribunal for a new hearing.
The second case of interest this month considers the manner in which an ill-health retirement procedure was dealt with and whether it constituted disability discrimination (Dunn v Secretary of State for Justice and anor).
In this case Mr Dunn was employed from 22 November 2010 as a prison inspector. In late 2012, he suffered a depressive illness and later, in the summer of 2015, was diagnosed with a heart condition. He applied for early retirement, which took effect from 29 February 2016. Mr Dunn made a number of complaints about the manner in which he was treated by the employer in relation to the ill health retirement procedure, including the length of time it took to administer. He brought claims for disability discrimination and harassment.
The Court of Appeal accepted that the process was “unnecessary bureaucratic” and defective. However, it did not agree that it was discriminatory and, as such, the claim did not succeed.
