In the case of Mr E C Oise v Spring & Co Solicitors Ltd an employment tribunal has ruled that the dismissal of a solicitor in his absence was ‘procedurally unfair’.
Employment Judge G D Davison, sitting at Watford, found that Bedfordshire firm Spring & Co Solicitors acted ‘unreasonably’ in pushing ahead with a disciplinary meeting despite Edegbai Oise having a medical note to show he was unfit to work.
The judge said the firm would have had grounds to dismiss the claimant if it had delayed the disciplinary hearing, which was over a threat by Oise to end a retainer with a client.
But the claim for unfair dismissal was well founded on the basis that Oise was absent during the hearing in January 2021, despite being signed off sick for two weeks by his GP from the previous week. The firm had refused to delay the hearing, telling Oise it did not consider that he had a genuine illness. It must now pay £1,177 as damages for unfair dismissal.
The tribunal heard that Oise worked as an assistant solicitor under the supervision of the firm’s director, Petronilla Aghaeze. An issue had arisen after Oise was asked to seek regular updates from a personal injury client over a case being investigated by an insurer.
The client was unhappy and said he felt being chased, to which Oise emailed in response and threatened to end the retainer. This threat was made without any discussion with Aghaeze.
The solicitor did not follow through with this threat, but Aghaeze felt Oise had exceeded his case management powers. He insisted he only sought supervision on matters he did not know how to handle and said he had seen how to respond to this situation previously.
Oise was told to write to the client, retract the threat and to apologise, but he refused and said he had done nothing wrong.
The judge concluded that the firm was acting reasonably in asking Oise to apologise to protect its relationship with the client. That he refused to follow these instructions, it was found, undermined the trust and confidence between employee and employer and would had led to a dismissal on the grounds of gross misconduct. The judge reduced Oise’s award by 50% on the basis of his conduct and made no order for costs.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
