Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

West Coast Trains Limited (WCT) v Murphy
Employment Appeal Tribunal - (04 April 2006)

Issues

(1) Unfair Dismissal
(2) Investigation
(3) Range of reasonable responses

Facts

Miss Murphy was a service manager employed by WCT on passenger trains travelling between London and Glasgow. She was dismissed for gross misconduct in June 2004 following a customer complaint that she had sworn at the customer and displayed threatening behaviour. The customer initially submitted her complaint to the train manager but then further details of the complaint were written in a letter to WCT by one of the customer's friends. An investigatory interview was held and Ms Murphy denied the allegations being made against her. She maintained the customer had been rude to her. WCT then carried out a further investigation and at this point the customer herself wrote a detailed letter about the incident. A statement was subsequently made by WCT which the customer signed.

Further investigatory interviews were held following which Miss Murphy was suspended. WCT then continued with the investigation interviewing the train manager and other train staff. Their statements were considered at the subsequent hearing. The first disciplinary hearing was adjourned but at the resumed hearing WCT confirmed that it was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the customer's allegations were established and that Murphy would be dismissed. Her internal appeal against the decision failed.

She then brought a tribunal claim that in the first instance was successful. She was awarded £33,799.82. The Tribunal made a finding that there was a conflict between the customer's evidence and Miss Murphy's and that WCT had preferred the customer's evidence "almost without question".

Decision

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) had no hesitation in allowing the appeal. It found that the tribunal had made its own assessment of the situation and had substituted its own view of what happened between Miss Murphy and the customer. They had also failed to take into account that the range of reasonable responses test applies to the investigation as well as the question of dismissal as well. The EAT referred back to the guidelines laid out in Linfood Cash and Carry Limited v Thomson which set out the guidelines relating to an informant wishing to keep their identity undisclosed for fear of reprisals. The EAT felt that the Linfood guidelines did not apply in this case as no informant was involved. It also found that a number of the tribunal's findings on the evidence were incorrect. There was indeed corroborative evidence and no suggestion had been made that Miss Murphy was prejudiced by not having the customer present. It found that the telephone interview with the customer was far from inadequate as the tribunal had found. The case was remitted to another tribunal for re-hearing.

Comments

This case highlights the importance of dealing with disciplinary situations on a case by case basis. Each case depends on its own circumstances and must be treated as such.

Rachel Billen - Associate Solicitor, Commercial Department at Veitch Penny.
Tel: 01392 278381, Fax: 01392 410247, Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it