Welcome back! Case of the week is back and this week’s case has enough drama to parallel any story line on EastEnders.
The questions this week are:
Is an employee obliged to report allegations of misconduct made against them outside of work under implied terms of their contract?
Can a part time employee be dismissed for having a second job on days they are not contracted to work?
The Claimant, Mr Amadi, was employed by the Respondent, Basildon Academies, as a cover supervisor. He was part time and only worked Thursday and Friday.
The Claimant was then offered additional work at Richmond and Thames College for the days he did not work at the Respondent. This was a breach of his contract and the Claimant did not inform the Respondent of his second job.
The Claimant was then suspended by Richmond and Thames College following an allegation that he had sexually assaulted a female pupil. The allegations were reported to the police and the Claimant was arrested. The Claimant was not charged and it is believed that the allegations were fictitious.
Three months later the police informed the Respondent about the allegations against the Claimant. He was suspended and the Respondent dismissed him citing both the failure to inform the Respondent about the allegation of sexual misconduct and his second job as acts of gross misconduct.
The Claimant won a claim for unfair dismissal at the Employment Tribunal however his award was reduced by 30% after the tribunal found his failure to disclose his second job as contributory fault to his dismissal.
The Respondent appealed the decision but the EAT rejected the appeal citing the fact that there was no express term in the Claimant’s contract that required him to report any allegation made against him outside of work.
To answer todays questions:
No, if it is not expressly written in the contract employees are not obliged by law to disclose allegations made against them.
In this case no, the tribunal ruled the Claimant should have been given the chance to end his employment at his second job. However the Tribunal did penalise the Claimant, reducing his tribunal award by a third.