In Burdis v Dorset County Council, Burdis (B) was dismissed for misconduct relating to significant failings in the financial management of his department. The ET found the dismissal for misconduct to be fair, rejecting B’s argument he had been held accountable for events that were not the result of misconduct on his part. The EAT rejected B’s appeal that the ET failed to correctly identify the reason for his dismissal as it should have been for ‘some other substantial reason’ which gave rise to different considerations when determining fairness and reasonableness. The ET was entitled to find that the dismissal was for misconduct because of B’s grossly negligent failure to ensure that the appropriate checks were in place to avoid the problems in issue, which in turn gave rise to personal culpability on B’s part. In doing so the ET did not err in allowing that misconduct was not limited to wilful misconduct, but could also encompass serious neglect, omission or carelessness.

The updates are kindly provided by Simons Muirhead & Burton Law firm

This update provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and help judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links to access full details. If no link is provided, contact us for more information.  Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.