Cadent Gas Limited v Singh
Facts
Mr Singh, a gas engineer had 29 years’ service with the Respondent company and a clean disciplinary record. He was a health and safety representative and a trade union shop steward. He had previously raised grievances about the allocation of work by the Respondent.
He was dismissed for gross misconduct following an incident where he was one minute late (under the Respondent’s policy) in responding to a gas leak call-out. His mitigation was that he had been working on a complex job, had not eaten all day and had less than 2 hours sleep. On his way to the call out, he had stopped to get food.
A senior manager at the Respondent, who had been the subject of some of the Claimant’s previous grievances, although not the investigating officer, had amended the terms of reference for the investigation, given incorrect information to HR and the dismissing officer, referred to the Claimant’s involvement with the Trade Union in correspondence and told the Claimant that the case was gross misconduct before the investigation was concluded.
Tribunal
The Claimant claimed automatic unfair dismissal on grounds of his trade union activities. The initial Tribunal upheld the claim, on the basis that the senior manager had driven the investigation towards dismissal even though the Tribunal also found that the dismissal and appeals officer in the case were not prejudiced against the Claimant.
Appeal
The Respondent appealed on the basis that only the ‘mental processes’ of the disciplining and appeal officers were relevant.
Decision
The motivation and knowledge of someone who is not a decision-maker can be attributed to an employer if that person is involved in the process even if that is in an unofficial capacity.
In this case, the motivation concerned Trade Union activities but this could equally apply to protected characteristics under discrimination law.
Comment
The case of Cadent Gas Limited v Singh emphasises the need for robust processes for appointment of investigators and the conduct of investigations. In this case, the whole process was undermined when a senior manager had undue influence at the outset. If necessary, employers can consider using an independent investigator to remove any influence.
Dismissal and appeals officers should also review cases from an objective standpoint to avoid decisions such as this which seemed harsh in all of the circumstances.
How can Nelsons help?
For further information or to comment on this article, please contact Laura Kearsley, Partner in our expert Employment Law team, or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online form.