My earlier assurances that my blogging wouldn’t be interrupted by work have been shown to be completely hollow – over two weeks have passed since my last post.
And it’s not even as if there’s been nothing to report. Favourite case recently must be Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd which talks of the burden of proof in Unfair Dismissal cases. Generally in law the person advancing a case, eg you saying that your neighbour cut down your hedge, the state saying you murdered him in retaliation, has the burden of proving the allegation. Not so in unfair dismissal. S.98(1) ERA 1996 moves the burden on to the employer. So if I say “you sacked me for an absolutely bloody stupid reason” then my employer doesn’t have to disprove my version of events to oppose the claim, they have to come up with their own valid reason for my dismissal and prove that. The reasons I advanced don’t really come into it.
In this case however the employee had advanced whistleblowing (protected disclosure) as the reason for her dismissal. It’s obvious why she would make sure she did this if she thought she might have a shout – whistleblowing claims aren’t subject to the financial limits of normal unfair dismissal and include an award for injury to feelings. The employer ran some taking-the-piss SOSR defence about the relationship having broken down. The tribunal stuck two fingers up at everyone by finding that dismissal was for a third reason, against the pleadings of both parties. The consequence for the simple unfair dismissal claim is obvious – it succeeds as the potentially fair reason advanced by the employer was not found to be proved. The odd consequence is for the whistleblowing claim – where does the burden of proof lie? Traditionally it should be at the employee’s door, it’s her case and her allegations. The statute is largely silent on the issue, the reversal of the burden of proof only seeming to explicitly apply to the reason actually advanced by the employer to be the reason for the dismissal. Well for once we’ve some useful guidance, produced by the EAT and approved by the Court of Appeal:
- Has the employee shown that there is a real issue as to whether the reason put forward by the respondent was not the true reason?
- If so, has the employer proved his reason for dismissal? Failure to do so will render the dismissal unfair, and then coupled with a primia facie case from the employer will entitle the tribuanl to infer that the employee’s stated reasons are correct.
- Has the employer disproved the reasons advanced by the employee? Even if the employer has failed to prove it’s own reason for the dismissal it may still have disproved that of the employee.
- If not, dismissal is for the reasons stated by the employee. It is not however, at any stagae, for the employee to prove her reason.
I’ve mucked around with the above to apply generally.
The Court of Appeal seem to have taken the line that this case is one for minority interest, stating that it shows how worked up lawyers can get about something like the burden of proof. I agree, but not with their observation that this sort of case will be rare. Protected disclosures are often presented in conjunction with a general claim for unfair dismissal, and its similarity to a discrimination claim may well mean that the facts coincide with the parties having fallen out generally. The unfair dismissal might well then often succeed without the whistleblowing. The same can be said about maternity-related dismissals.