Brian Burgess v Robert Kempson
[2023] EWHC 2216 (Ch)
Craig Waites v Bilfinger Salamis UK Ltd
10 May 2024
[2024] EAT 74
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A worker was fired for a safety mistake, partly because he used an old rulebook. He lost his unfair dismissal claim and his appeal. The judge said the company acted fairly, even though the worker didn't have the newest rules.
Key Facts
- •Craig Waites, a level 3 rope access technician, was dismissed by Bilfinger Salamis UK Ltd on 18 September 2019 for a 'golden rule' violation (failure to ensure a technician under his supervision was always attached while working at height).
- •An investigation revealed that Waites was using an outdated version of the relevant procedures.
- •Waites appealed his dismissal, but the appeal was unsuccessful.
- •Waites claimed unfair dismissal at the Employment Tribunal, which dismissed his claim.
- •Waites appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) on two grounds: 'substitution mindset' and 'lack of fair notice/effective participation at appeal stage'.
Legal Principles
Unfair Dismissal - Section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
Employment Rights Act 1996
Fairness of appeal process - considering whether the appeal decision maker adequately accounted for changed circumstances and whether the procedure cured defects.
EAT Case Law
Procedural fairness at appeal stage – opportunity to respond to new information.
EAT Case Law
Outcomes
The EAT dismissed the appeal.
The EAT found no merit in either ground of appeal. The tribunal did not substitute its own views for those of the respondent, and any procedural failings in the appeal process were inconsequential.