Dismissals involving accumulated warnings

Book your free initial call

    We endeavour to make an initial response to all enquiries within 24 hours but please be aware that on some occasions due to prior commitments or volume of calls we will not be able to respond in that time frame. We also operate a 48 hour return policy. This return policy means that if we have not responded with 48 hours of your initial enquiry we are unable to do so due to current workloads and we will destroy your data accordingly. This policy ensures you are not left waiting and have the certainty that your data is not compromised. In most instances however we are able to make contact within a 24 hour time frame. Please note our free initial advice service is available to clients at our total discretion and if your case is of a complex nature we may not be able to offer you a free consultation. However in these instances we will advise you what the charge would be for an initial fixed fee consultation.
  • (view our privacy statement)
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

In the case of Wincanton Group v Stone the EAT considered the fairness of a dismissal based on accumulated disciplinary warnings. The question was can a tribunal look behind earlier warnings?

The answer was no, unless satisfied that an earlier warning was issued in bad faith or was manifestly inappropriate.

The case involved a lorry driver (the Claimant) who was dismissed for misconduct after a serious driving accident, further to an earlier written warning for different misconduct. The dismissal was found by the Employment Tribunal to be unfair. They took into account the fact that the Claimant challenged the earlier warning and how it arose, although that warning was found to be valid.

The finding of unfair dismissal was overturned by the EAT and the case was remitted for re-hearing and guidance was laid down for Tribunals dealing with dismissals involving accumulated warnings.

The guidance is based on the overall reasonableness of the employer’s act of treating conduct as a reason for dismissal under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Specifically, where the earlier warning is valid, Tribunals should consider the following:-

  • The fact of that earlier warning;
  • Avoid “going behind” an earlier warning by considering its validity, unless satisfied that it is appropriate to do so;
  • Any proceedings that may affect the validity of that earlier warning, such as an internal appeal and what weight the employer gave to that challenge before dismissing;

However, the EAT confirmed that Tribunals are not “going behind” a warning by taking into account the factual circumstances that gave rise to it, the similarity between the earlier warnings and dismissal and the consistency of the employer’s approach.