Uddin v London Borough of Ealing – EAT decision
Uddin v London Borough of Ealing: the principles in Jhuti also apply to attribution of knowledge for the purpose of assessing whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing
The EAT has held that an employee was unfairly dismissed for alleged sexual misconduct because the investigating officer did not inform the dismissing officer that the alleged victim had withdrawn her police complaint about the incident.
The EAT applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti. The principles in Jhuti set out when knowledge held by a manager, other than the dismissing officer, can be attributed to the employer for the purpose of establishing the reason for dismissal. The EAT in Uddin held that these principles also apply for the purpose of assessing whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing.
The Court established that the knowledge or conduct of a person other than the person who decides to dismiss could be relevant under both S.98(1) and (4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. In cases where someone is responsible for the conduct of an investigation and they do not share a material fact with the decision-maker, this could be regarded as relevant to the tribunal’s determination of the S.98(4) question i.e. whether the dismissal is fair or unfair.
The full transcript can be found here: https://bit.ly/2URm1Fu