Mr Wilson was employed by Masterfoods which had a sophisticated set of internal disciplinary and dismissal procedures incorporated into employees’ contracts. In May 2003 Mr Wilson suffered a serious elbow injury and so began a lengthy sickness absence. Around a year later, in May 2004, he was examined by an occupational health doctor employed by the appellants. The doctor reported to Mr Vingoe, one of the company’s personnel managers, that Mr Wilson was still suffering serious effects as a result of his injuries, which severely impacted on his ability to work.
In October 2004 Masterfoods hired a private investigator who observed the respondent making a trip to France and it was alleged that this was a regular occurrence. Mr Wilson was therefore duly suspended without pay and ordered to attend a disciplinary meeting to consider the allegation that he had fraudulently obtained sick pay. Mr Vingoe was again present at this meeting where it was decided he should be recommended for dismissal. At a later stage an internal panel was convened, of which Mr Vingoe was again a member, and they rubber-stamped the decision to dismiss Mr Wilson.
Under Masterfoods’ contractual requirements Mr Wilson was permitted to lodge an appeal against his dismissal provided he set out the grounds for the appeal within 5 days. Mr Wilson sought to appeal the dismissal but, despite the time limit being extended, failed to furnish Masterfoods’ with reasons. Accordingly the company refused to hear their employee’s appeal and the dismissal remained in force. Mr Wilson took his case to a tribunal and won. However Masterfoods decided to appeal this decision to Employment Appeals Tribunal.
This body decided to uphold the decision of the initial tribunal and found in Mr Wilson’s favour regarding the two key points at issue in the case. Firstly they decided Mr Vingoe had been involved in too many roles during the disciplinary procedure and he had a closed mind from the outset, therefore the dismissal was substantively unfair.
The more contentious aspect of the decision, which may have considerable implications for firms who attempt to introduce sophisticated disciplinary procedures, was the decision that the statutory requirements should take priority over any contractual requirements when it comes to the right to appeal. Therefore all an employee must do is inform his employers that he intends to appeal as set out in Section 98A(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
There is no requirement that this notification need be in writing or that the grounds for the appeal should be specified. Therefore employers cannot use the excuse of an employee’s failure to comply with internal contractual requirements in respect of these matters to prevent an employee from exercising their entitlement to an appeal against dismissal. It was decided that Masterfoods had breached this requirement and the dismissal was automatically unfair. Therefore the case was remitted back to the original tribunal for a decision regarding the appropriate remedy.
In light of the second strand of this decision all firms would be well advised to review their disciplinary procedures to ensure they are in line with the statutory requirements.