BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Hackett v VAW Motorcast Ltd [2000] UKEAT 10_00_0803 (8 March 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/10_00_0803.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 10__803, [2000] UKEAT 10_00_0803 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE COLLINS CBE
MS S R CORBY
MR B M WARMAN
MR S HACKETT |
APPELLANT |
RESPONDENT | |
VAW MOTORCAST LTD |
APPELLANT |
RESPONDENT | |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARINGS – EX PARTE
For Mr S Hackett | MR BRUCE CARR (of Counsel) Messrs Rowley Ashworth Solicitors 247 The Broadway Wimbledon London SW19 1SE |
For VAW Motorcast Ltd | MR C GRAHAM (Solicitor) Messrs Ford & Warren Solicitors Westgate Point Westgate Leeds LS1 2AX |
JUDGE COLLINS:
"… Particularly in a foundry which is necessarily a dangerous place, violence or threats of violence are always going to be treated with some seriousness by an employer and it is entirely right, we think, that Mr Hackett ought to have been facing disciplinary proceedings for threatening Mr Roach, …"
What had happened was that there was some kind of altercation between Mr Hackett and Mr Roach some six months before the question of dismissal arose and information about this spat only came to light because Mr Hackett himself disclosed it in connection with other discussions which were taking place. In the light of his admission that he had made threats, disciplinary proceedings were held and the result was that he was dismissed on the grounds of his conduct.
"The Applicant was employed by the Respondent as a Core Operative from the 4 January 1994 until his summary dismissal on 23 July 1999 by reason of gross misconduct.
Such gross misconduct involved threatening behaviour towards a fellow employee and threats of violence."
The company contended, as it has contended through Mr Graham today, that having determined the reason for the dismissal, (and the tribunal made it plain in its judgment that it accepted that the misconduct in question was an admissible reason for dismissal) the employers acted reasonably in investigating the matter and deciding that it was fair to dismiss Mr Hackett.