Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

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

The facts in Kaltz Ltd v Hamer

Mrs Hamer (“the Claimant”) commenced employment with Kaltz Ltd in 2001 as administration manager of Kaltz Ltd (“the Respondent”). In 2009 she was subjected to a disciplinary for three separate issues: firstly, her attitude towards other members of staff; secondly, misconduct in her attitude and disrespect shown to directors; and thirdly, gross misconduct for disclosure of payroll information which amounted to confidential information. The third allegation (the disclosure of confidential information) was sub-divided into three separate issues, one of which amounted to a protected disclosure as the information showed or disclosed wrongdoing by the Respondent. The Claimant was subsequently dismissed for gross misconduct.

The Claimant therefore submitted employment law claims to the Employment Tribunal relating to sex discrimination, wrongful dismissal, and unfair dismissal. The Employment Tribunal rejected the claims for sex discrimination and wrongful dismissal but upheld the claim for automatic unfair dismissal (on the basis that the main reason for the dismissal was the making of a protected disclosure). The Employment Tribunal, however, considered that on “ordinary” unfair dismissal principles the dismissal of the Claimant would have been within the range of reasonable responses in the circumstances. The Employment Tribunal awarded the Claimant £33,941.20 in compensation.

The law relating to unfair dismissal

Due to the nature of this claim we’ll take a look at the law relating to automatic unfair dismissal and how it relates to the making of protected disclosures by Claimants under employment law.

Under s.103A the dismissal of employees for making a protected disclosure is automatically unfair. Under automatic unfair dismissal principles the Claimant does not have to have a continuous period of employment of over a year and there is no cap on damages (like ordinary unfair dismissal principles).

An employee makes a protected disclosure if they make a qualified disclosure to a suitable person. A qualified disclosure is information which in the reasonable belief of the worker shows that any of the following has been committed, is being committed, or is likely to be committed:

  • Criminal offence
  • Failure to comply with a legal obligation
  • Miscarriage of justice
  • That the health or safety of another individual has been endangered
  • That the environment has been damaged
  • That information relating to any of the above has been concealed

The qualifying disclosure must also be disclosed to a suitably qualified person. This can include a solicitor, your employer, or a Member of Parliament (among others).

The qualifying disclosure must be made in good faith and with reasonable belief that the information is substantially true.

Once the qualifications have been met to have made a protected disclosure the employee will be automatically unfairly dismissed under employment law principles if the principal reason for the dismissal related to the making of the protected disclosure.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s judgment in Kaltz Ltd v Hamer

The Respondent appealed on remedy, not liability. It considered that the Employment Tribunal had:

  1. Misdirected itself in its application of the law to the facts by deciding the case on overly narrow legal principles
  2. Erred in law in not reducing the Claimant’s compensation in light of her contributory fault in her dismissal on account of her conduct
  3. Erred in law in not reducing the Claimant’s compensation in light of Polkey rules (I.e. that she would have been dismissed anyway but for the protected disclosure)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal determined that, respectively:

  1. The Employment Tribunal had not misdirected itself but had reached its decision based upon a broad consideration of the law and the circumstances of the case
  2. The Employment Tribunal had failed to give reasons as to why the other elements of disclosure of confidential information had not impacted upon their decision relating to liability or compensation
  3. The Employment Tribunal was entitled not to make a Polkey reduction but had failed to give reasons for not doing so

The case was therefore remitted to the same Tribunal to decide points 2 and 3.

Our thoughts on Kaltz Ltd v Hamer

This is a case in which the Employment Tribunal has come to a reasonable but inconsistent decision relating to the issues of wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal under employment law. It has also failed to give reasons for its rejection of the Respondent’s contributory fault and Polkey arguments. It must be borne in mind that these are complex issues and involve lengthy judgments, so it is understandable that the Employment Tribunal sometimes makes oversights. However, the Respondent was entitled to have reasons given for the rejection of the above arguments and this is why the case has been remitted to the Employment Tribunal for it to consider compensation. It remains to be seen whether the Respondent will achieve a more favourable outcome.

About Chris Hadrill

Chris is a specialist employment lawyer at Redmans. He specialises in contentious and non-contentious employment matters, including breach of contract claims, compromise agreements and Employment Tribunal cases. He writes on employment law matters on a variety of websites, including Direct 2 Lawyers, Lawontheweb.co.uk, LegalVoice, the Justice Gap and his own blog. Contact Chris by emailing him at chadrill@redmans.co.uk

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

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

Share →

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

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

4.76 Average

103 Reviews

Rob O

Very prompt response and I could not fault the service. My solicitor listened carefully to the details of my case and I felt very confident in the advice I was offered. All emails and work done on my behalf with my former employer was of the highest standard and Redmans helped take a lot of the stress out of the situation for me.

Posted 1 day ago

Mike H

Very professional, friendly, proactive. I would highly recommend Redmans.

Posted 1 day ago

Anonymous

Fantastic and quick service!

Posted 1 day ago

Anonymous

I was very satisfied with Redmans' service. Clear, sensible advice and the bill was in line with their estimate. I would recommend them.

Posted 1 day ago

Eugene A

Excellent communication and guidance provided on the redundancy settlement process. Process was concluded quickly, very satisfied with service.

Posted 1 day ago

Harold d

Great personlised service and quick communication. Solicitor helps greatly in understanding the options and advising best course of action.

Posted 1 day ago

Trish B

Professional and efficient. A pleasure to deal with.

Posted 2 days ago

Omi H

Excellent communication. A tactical negotiator to get the best package for the client. Highly recommended.

Posted 2 days ago

Nicholas S

Very prompt and efficient. Excellent advice.

Posted 2 days ago

Anonymous

Very helpful and always available to help! It was my first time to deal with any solicitors, but I felt very supported until the end!! Well done!! and great Job!!

Posted 1 week ago

Mohamed F

Excellent and professional solicitors, highly recommended

Posted 4 weeks ago

Anonymous

Redmans Solicitors provided a professional and prompt service in dealing with my settlement agreement. They used their experience to negotiate a better deal for which I am grateful for. I highly recommend their services.

Posted 1 month ago

Cheryl R

Very efficient and friendly lawyers. I have used Redmans twice now and Chris Hadrill has been amazing to work with. Would highly recommend Redmans.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

I found Redmans Solicitors to be extremely professional, dealing with my questions and concerns quickly and in detail. I would have no hesitation in recommending Redmans Solicitors to anyone.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

I requested Redmans services on a redundancy case. Both Chris and Rana were great, thoughtful, very professional and responded quickly. They were very clear throughout the entire process, regarding the process and my options and I couldn't feel I had better legal advice for my case. Overall excellent service and I would certainly recommend and use their services again.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Responsive, patient, thorough and personable - an excellent service.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

The team at Redmans, Chris Hadrill and Sacha Barrett were always very helpful and had expert knowledge to assist me during my employment law matter, I would not hesitate to recommend them to all!

Posted 1 month ago

Arun T

Chris was punctual, attentive and accurate. He answered my questions with clarity and avoided dubiosity. I would recommend him to anyone seeking legal advice within his remit.

Posted 1 month ago

Yulian Z

Great service

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Excellent, professional service and a speedy resolution. Many thanks

Posted 1 month ago

Taral P

Sacha and Chris were both very helpful in closing out my matter. Sacha was very clear in helping me understanding the documents I needed reviewing, providing a professional service throughout.

Posted 1 month ago