Cavanaugh is a stark reminder of the importance of a robust disciplinary policy and procedural fairness when suspending and investigating employees. The employee in question had been accused of bullying and harassment, causing one colleague to resign, claiming constructive dismissal as a result of his treatment. The employee was subsequently dismissed for gross misconduct. He alleged that his suspension and the investigation were so high-handed and unfair that his employer had breached their duties and caused him psychiatric injury. The Tribunal found that it both reasonable and proper that the employee was suspended (and in the manner he was), particularly as concerns related to bullying and harassment. A fair procedure was followed. The employer made the necessary adjustments to the disciplinary process to accommodate the mental ill-health suffered by the employee, where notified. However, ultimately, it was clear that however the investigation and disciplinary process had been handled, the employee would not have accepted the allegations and would have regarded the process against him as wrong and unfair. The employer was not responsible for any psychiatric injury suffered. The employee’s claims were unfounded.
58-year-old sacked senior associate Mr Cowie, described by his younger boss as an “old fossil” who “did not know how to manage millennials”, has won a £3.1 million payout after suing his former employer for age discrimination. The tribunal found he was unfairly dismissed due to his age, revealing ageist policies and discriminatory remarks. Younger colleagues were favoured for promotions and that a hiring policy had been introduced, pushing to recruit no one older than 45. This led to Mr Cowie’s dismissal after nearly 40 years at the company and his replacement by someone younger and less experienced. Mr Cowie’s case, as one of the largest payouts ever made by an employment tribunal, is a warning about the legal risks companies face when engaging in discriminatory practices based on age. It is essential that employers review and adjust their progression and recruitment in light of this case; compliance is not optional.
Placing an employee into a redundancy selection pool of one was held procedurally unfair because the employer did not consider other employees performing similar roles in different locations. Mr Valimulla was one of four Masjid Liaison Officers (MLO) across the UK and was based in the Northwest of England. During Covid-19, the requirement for MLOs declined and Mr Valimulla was selected for redundancy in a pool of one because his role was considered ‘unique’ by his employer. He was then made redundant. On appeal, the Tribunal found that Mr Valimulla’s role was not unique as other MLOs performed similar functions across the UK. In addition, the reason for redundancy was a nationwide decline in the demand for the work carried out by an MLO; it was not confined to the Northwest. A single selection pool was therefore unjustified and Mr Valimulla dismissal by reason of redundancy was unfair. Meaningful consultation should have occurred before finalising the redundancy pool and his employer should have considered all those performing a similar role to Mr Valimulla across the UK. This would have allowed Mr Valimulla to potentially influence the outcome and ensured that the redundancy process was procedurally fair.
