In Cadent Gas Limited v Singh. S missed the response time to get to a gas leak by a minute because he stopped for some food. H was involved in the investigation, with whom S had had difficulties in the past relating to his union activities, H referred S’s trade union status in an email which he wanted to keep “on the radar” and gave incorrect information to HR and to the dismissing officer. W who dismissed S for gross misconduct and D who heard the appeal had no previous involvement in the case. An ET upheld S’s claim of automatically unfair dismissal because of his trade union activities. The EAT agreed, rejecting Cadent’s argument that as W and D were not motivated by prejudice against S for his trade union activities, H’s animosity to S could not be attributed to the employer. While W and D were not motivated by prejudice, that did not preclude a finding that union activities played a part in their reasoning. The facts pointed to a manipulator scenario, i.e. H’s leading role was such that it was appropriate to attribute his motivation to the employer, even though that motivation might not be shared by W and D.
Motivation for manipulating evidence because of hostility to union activity could be attributed to employer
Article by: Makbool Javaid |