Hargreaves v JWD Tractors Ltd t/a JWD Equestrian ET/2405858/11
Date added: 26 January 2012
unfair dismissal | health and safety | insurance
This case is a good example of how the dismissal of an employee for a failure to follow an important protocol or rule can be unfair where the protocol or rule was not communicated effectively in the first place.
Practical tips
A decision to dismiss an employee for a failure to follow an important protocol or rule (for example, involving children, health and safety or insurance) may be justified when the rules have been clearly communicated to him or her.
However, the employer should ensure that the protocol or rule was clearly communicated to the employee in the first place. A decision to dismiss when the employee was not clear on the rule through no fault of his or her own is unlikely to be fair. |
Ms Hargreaves worked as a riding instructor and groom at an equestrian centre. Six horses at the centre were used to give riding lessons, and a further 40 livery horses were stabled there for clients in return for a fee.
In December 2010, Ms Hargreaves asked Mrs Pallas, the yard manager, if she could bring in her young niece to sit on a horse. A "sit on" means a short ride on a horse without an official lesson. Mrs Pallas agreed, expecting that the ride would be on one of the six riding-school horses.
Mrs Pallas asked Ms Hargreaves to fill in a rider registration form. About two-thirds of the form is completed by the individual having the lesson (or parent or guardian, if the rider is a child). The remaining third of the form has to be filled in by the riding instructor or supervisor. However, Ms Hargreaves failed to complete this part of her niece's form.
Ms Hargreaves allowed her niece two sit ons, but both were on a livery horse, not a riding-school horse. After the first ride, Mrs Pallas queried the child's age with Ms Hargreaves because of how small the child seemed. Mrs Pallas explained that, for insurance purposes, there was a minimum age of five for riding. Ms Hargreaves confirmed that her niece was five. On reading the rider registration form, Mrs Pallas discovered that the child was in fact only four years old.
A company director, Mr Charnley, suspended Ms Hargreaves and invited her to a disciplinary hearing by a letter dated 21 January 2011. The invitation letter stated that she was accused of not acting "responsibly and truthfully". The company added a number of other allegations to the proceedings, relating to Ms Hargreaves':
- exercising clients' horses in return for taking a fee on the side;
- stating on recruitment that she had obtained a degree that she had not in fact completed; and
- failing to refer customers to senior staff at appropriate times.
Mr Charnley's investigation consisted of speaking to Mrs Pallas and another member of management, Ms Clark. No notes documenting the investigation or conversations with Mrs Pallas or Ms Clark were produced at the subsequent tribunal hearing.
At the disciplinary hearing on 26 January 2011, Ms Hargreaves accepted that she had not completed her part of the rider registration form, but said that she did not think that this was a strict requirement for informal sit ons. The company referred to a meeting that had taken place a few months earlier at which Mrs Pallas was said to have explained the company's new insurance policy, which set the minimum age for riders at five. Ms Hargreaves queried when this meeting had taken place, but was not given any further information about it.
Mr Charnley announced at the end of the disciplinary hearing, without any adjournment or break, that Ms Hargreaves was being dismissed. Her dismissal with immediate effect was confirmed in a letter dated 26 January 2011. The reason given for the dismissal was that she had "lied to [her] manager and allowed a child under the age that was required for cover under the [company's] insurance policy to be on a client's pony on the [company's] premises and under [her] control". The letter also made reference to Ms Hargreaves' failure to fill in her part of the rider registration form. Ms Hargreaves appealed, stressing that, once she became aware that there was an insurance issue with her niece's age, she did not allow her to ride on the horses again. Ms Hargreaves' appeal was unsuccessful and she claimed unfair dismissal.
The employment tribunal found that Ms Hargreaves had not deliberately lied about her niece's age and had simply been mistaken about it. In addition, Ms Hargreaves did not believe that the child's age was important, being unaware of the insurance issue. It was also her understanding that it was not necessary to fill in the form as the child was not having a lesson and was not using a riding-school horse.
The tribunal concluded that the company had no grounds for assuming that Ms Hargreaves had, at the time of the relevant events, fully understood its recently amended insurance policy. Ms Hargreaves could not have been aware that the same insurance policy applied to children having an informal ride on livery horses as those having lessons taking place on riding-school ponies.
The tribunal had concerns about the procedure that the company had followed, particularly the number of allegations that it had put to Ms Hargreaves during the disciplinary hearing, with confusion over the relative importance of each one. The tribunal was also critical of Mr Charnley's:
- acting as both the investigator and the chair of the disciplinary hearing;
- failure to hold an investigatory meeting with Ms Hargreaves; and
- giving his decision at the end of the disciplinary hearing, without an adjournment.
Although the company argued that Ms Hargreaves had contributed to her own dismissal with "culpable and blameworthy" conduct, the tribunal refused to reduce her compensation. There was no clear policy on when staff had to fill in the form for livery horses, and Ms Hargreaves had stopped the activity as soon as she became aware that her niece's age was important because of the insurance restrictions.
Additional resources
|