Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

In the case of Arnold Clark Automobiles Ltd v Spoor UKEAT/0170/16/DA the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) held that the Employment Tribunal had not erred in finding that the dismissal of an employee for physical violence against another employee was unfair, as there was no error of law in the Tribunal’s decision.

Mr Spoor commenced employment with Arnold Clark Automobiles Ltd (“Arnold Clark”) in 1973 and was, at the times relevant to this case, a Motor Vehicle Technician.

On 27 April 2015 Mr Spoor momentarily lost his temper with a colleague over a minor issue and placed his hands on the colleague’s neck for a couple of seconds. This incident was reported by the colleague to his line manager, Mr French and Mr Spoor was interviewed by Mr French. In this interview Mr Spoor admitted that he may have caught his colleague’s throat but contended that he had not grabbed his colleague by the throat. On 28 April 2015 Mr Spoor approached his colleague to apologise for his actions and, later in the day, both Mr Spoor and his colleague were called by Mr Middleton (the Service Manager) to a meeting to discuss the incident. Mr Middleton informed Mr Spoor that he had decided not to take any formal disciplinary action regarding the incident but that he intended to issue Mr Spoor with a “letter of concern”, in line with Arnold Clark’s informal procedure. Mr Spoor again apologised to his colleague and confirmed that he knew that he was in the wrong and should not have done what he did. Mr Spoor and his colleague shook hands and they both returned to work.

On 28 April 2015 Mr French sent a copy of the “letter of concern” to Ms Kilshaw (Human Resources). Mr French confirmed that there had been “some handbags”, that a copy of the “letter of concern” would be issued to Mr Spoor, and that he was sending this to Ms Kilshaw for her records. Upon the receipt of Mr French’s email Ms Kilshaw became concerned that there had been an incident of physical violence, and decided that a formal investigation of the incident was required. Ms Kilshaw therefore interviewed Mr Spoor, Mr Chapman, and other colleagues, and suspended Mr Spoor pending a formal disciplinary hearing. On 30 April 2015 Ms Kilshaw sent Mr Spoor a letter stating that an outcome of the hearing may be dismissal.

On 6 May 2015 Mr Spoor attended a hearing. Mr French and Ms Fowler (Human Resources) also attended the hearing. At the end of the hearing Ms Fowler confirmed that Mr Spoor would be dismissed for gross misconduct as “…we deem any form of physical violence as unacceptable…”. She also stated that the company had a “zero tolerance policy” to physical violence and did not consider it appropriate to undertake a review of the context of the incident, including Mr Spoor’s length of service (42 years), his exemplary disciplinary record, and the level or degree of physical violence.

Mr Spoor appealed the decision to dismiss him but this was rejected. Mr Spoor made a claim to the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal, and this came to a full hearing on 21 December 2015.  The Employment Tribunal found that the investigation undertaken by Arnold Clark was not reasonable in the circumstances as no attempt was made to discuss the matter with Mr French or Middleton and, in particular, to obtain their view of the seriousness of the incident. Further, the Tribunal also found that no reasonable employer would have dismissed in the circumstances, having proper regard to all of the circumstances including his length of service and previous record. The Tribunal did, however, find that Mr Spoor contributed to his own dismissal to the extent of 50 percent.

Arnold Clark appealed against this decision on four grounds, including that the Tribunal had impermissibly substituted its own view for that of Arnold Clark (“the First Ground”), that the Tribunal had misdirected itself by applying the guidance in the case of Ramphal v Department of Transport [2015] IRLR 985 (“the Second Ground”), that the Tribunal failed to make any finding as to whether Mr Spoor’s behaviour constituted gross misconduct (“the Third Ground”), and that the Tribunal had acted perversely as this was not a decision that any reasonable Tribunal properly directly itself on the law could have reached (“the Fourth Ground”).

The Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected the First Ground and Fourth Grounds of appeal but found that Arnold Clark’s appeals on the Second Ground Third Ground had some merit, as, respectively, Ramphal was not applicable in the circumstances and the Tribunal had failed to give specific reasons as to whether they had found Mr Spoor’s behaviour to be gross misconduct under Arnold Clark’s disciplinary policy. However, the EAT found that the merits of these grounds of appeal were not sufficient to merit the upholding of the appeal, as the EAT were satisfied that Arnold Clark had failed to take into account all the circumstances (including Mr Spoor’s exemplary service and the seriousness of the incident) when reaching its decision to dismiss.

The EAT also dismissed an argument that Mr Spoor had contributed to his own dismissal to the extent of 100 percent.

The EAT therefore rejected Arnold Clark’s appeal.

Chris Hadrill, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “This case shows that employers must carefully apply their disciplinary policy and take into account all of the circumstances of the case before making any decision to dismiss – a failure to do so may render any decision to dismiss unfair.”

About

Redmans Employment Team deal with employment matters for both employers and employees, including drafting employment contracts and policies, advising employers and employees on compromise agreements, handling day-to-day HR issues, advising on restructures, and handling Employment Tribunal cases for both employers and employees

Call 020 3397 3603 to speak to one of the members of our employment team or email us on enquiries@redmans.co.uk.

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.52 Average

21 Reviews

Redman's provided excellent legal employment advice for me during a difficult time in my employment. Chris was my lawyer, super efficient, quick, reliable and clearly very experienced in the matter. Could not ask for a better law firm to deal with your query if you are in need of some help. Would definitely use them again in the future. Highly recommending Chris.

Posted 1 month ago

Steven

Chris Hadrill was very professional and responsive. I would highly recommend him

Posted 1 month ago

Dinah

Very Efficient, with very quick email reply’s. I had a matter that needed resolving within a very short space of time and Redmans Solicitors were great with dealing with my matter quickly.

Posted 1 month ago

Ankar

At Redmans the solicitor that was dealing with me was Chris. He dealt with my situation smoothly with clear guidance and explanation

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Clear, concise advice and guidance delivered by an experienced and very capable solicitor, within the timelines required

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very efficient service. I never had to wIt for more than a day for a reply to any of my queries and the matter was dealt with swiftly.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very timely, thorough and helpful advice. Friendly and considerate of the needs of the client

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very prompt and attention to detail. Thank you for the service

Posted 2 months ago

Chris

Couldn’t be happier with how Redmans successfully handled our seemingly tricky case. By being clear and detailed every step of the way, with the utmost professionalism and courtesy, they made it an informative and eye-opening process, taking the stress out of the situation and ultimately delivered what you would want from such a service. I fully appreciate everything they have done, and if I am ever in need of such services in the future, they will be the first number I contact. Excellent.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Excellent work delivered with great quality

Posted 2 months ago

Dominic

Chris Hadrill was a great help both in terms of his advice and his expertise. He explained my options to me clearly and concisely enabling me to quickly make the right decision for me in the circumstance. I would not hesitate to recommend Chris or Redmans to friends or colleagues, and would certainly make Redmans my first port of call should I require a similar service in the future.

Posted 2 months ago

Kurt

Redmans gave excellent advice and helped me understand everything in clear concepts. Thank you!

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Resolved my issues

Posted 2 months ago

Keith

Quick fast professional service.

Posted 2 months ago

Michael

"Prompt, efficient and practical advice that resulted in me getting some additional money tax free."

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Patient and thorough advice given to me around my Settlement Agreement

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

"Excellent service, getting back to you promptly giving you very good advice."

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

I found Chris Hadrill to be an excellent help, he is very knowledgeable and gives good ,concise ,strategic advice .He makes himself readily accessible when you need him.I would personally highly recommend him.

Posted 2 months ago

Christine

Professional, efficient and reliable service provided. I strongly recommend them and I would use this service again.

Posted 2 months ago