• This month

  • …at a glance

• Legal updates

  • TUPE could operate across National borders
  • When is it right to bow to customer pressure?
  • The value of a mobility clause

• Case archive

  • July 09
  • June 09
  • May 09
  • April 09
  • March 09
  • January 09
  • November 08
  • July 08
  • June 08
  • April 08
  • March 08
  • February 08

Enquiries

T: +44 (0) 1451 812 225

info@west-writing.com

Immigrant employment status needs care

Greenwood vs Whiteghyll Plastics Ltd.

EAT/0010/04

Key facts

Whitegyll, a shop fitting firm, received complaints from it’s customer, Morrison’s Supermarkets, about the conduct of an employee, Greenwood. Whitegyll looked for alternative employment for Greenwood but, having just completed a redundancy exercise, found none and dismissed Greenwood.

The Tribunal, recognising the importance of Morrison’s to Whitegyll, found that the dismissal was fair and this case concerned an appeal by Greenwood.     

Decision

The EAT found in Greenwood’s favour, arguing that Whitegyll should have done more for Greenwood, however important the views of the client were. The EAT suggested that conciliation with the customer, performance management or re-training  of Greenwood, considering alternative work or swapping him with another employee on another client’s contract or in a non-customer facing role were all alternatives that the Company hadn’t considered and they therefore ruled the dismissal unfair.

Our view

However tempting it is to escalate the importance of an issue when it is brought to you by a key client (or Board member, for that matter), the ‘normal’ rules on dismissal do apply and all options must be considered before dismissal.