Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

Ramsey & Others v Walkers Snack Foods Limited
Employment Appeal Tribunal (13 February 2004)

Issues

(1) Unfair Dismissal
(2) Evidence
(3) Reasonableness of Decision

Facts

The three employee applicants worked at the company’s factory in Peterlee.

A number of employees separately approached their employers and informed them that colleagues were stealing money from packets of crisps. The money was being inserted as part of an advertising promotion. Each of the informants insisted that they must remain anonymous both to the employees in question and also to the remainder of the workforce. The reason for this was there had been a history of incidents of intimidation by employees when they felt their colleagues were co-operating too closely with management.

During the company’s investigations, further informants came forward. Again, they insisted they should not be identified.

The decision was taken that the informants would be interviewed by the Human Resources Manager for the company. She interviewed each informant and prepared them a statement for their approval. The contents of the statements were general and did not contain any information that could identify the informant. They were also unsigned. In her evidence, Mrs Patterson confirmed that it was her view that the Statements were reliable and that the informants were acting in good faith. It was agreed that the informants would not be questioned further by other managers.

These statements were then used as the basis of disciplinary proceedings against the employees. After considering the evidence, it was decided that the employees were guilty and were dismissed.

At first instance, the employees’ claims for unfair dismissal were dismissed. The employees then appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). In their appeal, the employees questioned the manner in which the statements were taken, given that they lacked detail and because they had no opportunity to question the witnesses during the investigations or disciplinary process. The employees made specific reference to the guidelines for dealing with anonymous witnesses as set out in the judgment of Linfood Cash & Carry Limited –v- Thomson. The Linfood case stressed that an informant’s statement should incorporate details of time and place of any observation and that those dealing with the disciplinary hearing should personally interview the informant so that they themselves can ascertain what weight to give to the evidence.

Decision

The EAT confirmed that the Tribunal had not been wrong to find that the dismissals were fair. In reaching its decision, the EAT noted that the facts of this case varied from those in the Linfood case in two specific ways. First, the witnesses had insisted on any information which could identify them being omitted from the statements. Second, they were unwilling to be further questioned by the managers dealing with the disciplinary procedure. It accepted that the tribunal was right to consider all the circumstances, including the reasons for granting anonymity in the first place and the history of intimidation.

The EAT confirmed that the dismissals were fair, given the particular circumstances which went beyond those in the Linfood case.

Comments

The Linfood case remains the principal case to use when dealing with witnesses who wish to remain anonymous because of fears of retaliation. However, the EAT stressed that each case must be considered on its facts. It is also authority for the view that whilst it is good practice to allow witnesses to be cross-examined during the disciplinary process, this is not a right for employees. At the end of the day, when a disciplinary procedure is considered by a tribunal the test is whether the procedure was fair in its result.