Scottish Prison Service v Laing UKEATS/0060/12;  IRLR 859; (2014) EMPLR 039
Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)
Lady Stacey, Mr P Hunter and Mr M Sibbald
Treating employees inconsistently by dismissing one but not dismissing another for the same misconduct can make the dismissal unfair unless there are good reasons for distinguishing them. Paul v East Surrey District Health Authority established that the question to be asked is whether the reasons for the differences in treatment were ‘so irrational that no employer could reasonably have accepted them’.
L was one of four prison officers dismissed for their involvement in and/or failure to intervene in an assault on a prisoner. One of the four was reinstated on appeal but the dismissals of the other three, including L, were upheld. L complained to a tribunal this inconsistent treatment made his dismissal unfair. The reasons the appeal board gave for reinstating the other officer were that he had been outside the room in which the assault occurred and may not have seen it; he was working in a location he rarely worked in with staff and prisoners he had never worked with; he knew nothing of their working regime; there had been no handover or orientation to familiarize him with the prison management style of the other three officers.
The EAT held that those were rational and acceptable reasons for distinguishing L from the officer whose appeal was allowed. The appeal board was familiar with the working environment and the prison officers’ code of conduct and was therefore in a good position to judge the relative seriousness of the officer’s failures.
Law and Practice
The status of employment rights on the transfer of an undertaking is an extremely complex area of...