Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

Strouthos v London Underground Limited
Court of Appeal - (18 March 2004)

Issues

(1) Unfair dismissal
(2) Reason for dismissal
(3) Reasonableness

Facts

The Applicant Michael Strouthos was employed as a tube driver from April 1982 until February 2002. During his employment he was also the secretary of the London Transport Rifle and Pistol Club. Following changes to UK legislation restricting the use of small arms, all the Club’s shooting matches were held abroad. Strouthos used one of the employers’ vans to go on these shooting trips until 2001 when he was informed that the company no longer recognised the Club. In September 2001 a company vehicle was used for a trip to Belgium with 4 other men. Whilst there they purchased a quantity of cigarettes and alcohol which were impounded by Customs Officers on their return on suspicion that the goods were not for personal use and were for re-sale. The vehicle itself was also impounded and was finally returned to the company a month later. No charges were brought against Mr Strouthos or the others.

The company commenced disciplinary proceedings against Mr Strouthos. He was charged with gross misconduct by taking the vehicle and failing to disclose their destination, and then without permission and the appropriate insurance, took the car to Belgium during which time it was impounded by Customs. It was alleged that this had damaged the company’s reputation and brought the company into disrepute (because reports of the incident appeared in two national newspapers). The disciplinary panel found that the charge of gross misconduct was justified and Mr Strouthos was summarily dismissed.

The Employment Tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair. The company did not have a reasonable ground for its belief that being stopped by Customs and having the vehicle impounded amounted to gross misconduct and brought the company into disrepute given that no charges were brought against him. The remaining charges (use of the vehicle without permission, travelling without the appropriate insurance and failing to disclose the destination) were insufficient to justify summary dismissal of an employee who had worked for the company for 20 years and had no previous warnings. These matters did however warrant a 20% reduction in the compensation Strouthos received.

The company then appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal which was successful. The EAT had found that Strouthos had behaved dishonestly and that this constituted a breach of trust sufficient to make a finding of unfair dismissal.

The matter was then referred to the Court of Appeal.

Decision

The appeal was allowed and the Employment Tribunal’s original decision restored.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that the original Tribunal had not erred in making its finding. The EAT had been incorrect to conclude that the Applicant had behaved dishonestly and that this constituted a breach of trust sufficient for the Tribunal to conclude that the dismissal was fair.

The Court of Appeal stated that a charge made against an employee facing dismissal should be precisely worded and that the evidence used during the proceedings should be confined to the particulars given in that charge. The hearing should remain focused on the charges in question. In this case the charge did not allege that Strouthos had acted dishonestly or that he had taken the vehicle without permission (only alleging that he had taken it abroad without permission). Further the disciplinary panel had not made any finding that he had been dishonest.

Comments

This case highlights the importance of properly framing disciplinary charges when reaching disciplinary decisions and to ensure that long service is properly taken into account. The Court of Appeal stressed, however, that long service does not shield an employee from all disciplinary charges.