In JJ Food Service Ltd v Kefil, K, who had 14 years’ service, was dismissed for gross misconduct after a number of employees alleged he had mistreated them, i.e. threatening employees’ job security and creating an intimidating environment. The ET found the dismissal unfair because although there had been concerns about K’s management style in the past, for which he had been warned informally, he had not been formally warned that if he continued to manage in that way he might be dismissed. The EAT upheld the ET’s decision, rejecting the employer’s argument that it was perverse. Although K ought to have known that dismissal would be the consequence, the ET was in the position properly to evaluate all the facts. The ET did not see K with rose tinted glasses, but was entitled to find, on the evidence, that dismissal was unreasonable without first giving him a warning, not just about what he was doing, but that he might be dismissed if he went on doing it.

Comment: The EAT in making its ruling commented that while they were sympathetic to the employer’s case, the circumstances could not lead to a finding of perversity on the ET’s part. Just because you don’t like the outcome, doesn’t mean that the law has not been applied properly. According to the EAT: “Indeed, it might be said that the over authoritarian manager is not unknown in industry and the lay members, in particular, made the point that it would be unfortunate if such managers were not warned, if the circumstances were such that they might not clearly have understood, that repeat of that conduct might lead to their dismissal.” The learning point?: don’t lull staff into a false sense of security. If their conduct could result in dismissal, then formally warn them that is the case.