In Hargreaves v JWD Tractors Ltd t/a JWD Equestrian, Ms Hargreaves was employed as a riding instructor and groom at an equestrian centre. There were six horses at the centre for riding lessons and forty livery horses were stabled there for paying clients.
Ms Hargreaves asked Mrs Pallas, the yard manager, for a "sit on" for her niece. A "sit on" is a short ride on a horse without an official lesson and Mrs Pallas agreed to the request on the presumption that the ride would be on one of the six riding lesson horses.
Ms Hargreaves failed to complete the rider registration form and allowed her niece two sit ons on a livery horse as opposed to a riding-school horse. Mrs Pallas queried the child's age with Ms Hargreaves and explained that a child had to be at least five years old for the purposes of the insurance policy. Ms Hargreaves assured her that her niece was five years old. On reviewing the registration form, Mrs Pallas found that the child was only four years old.
Ms Hargreaves was suspended and was invited to a disciplinary hearing. The employer conducted a sparse investigation which involved speaking to Mrs Pallas and another member of management. No notes of the investigation or conversations were later supplied to the Tribunal.
Ms Hargreaves agreed that she had not completed the registration form but stated that she did not understand that this was a strict requirement for informal sit ons. The company did not provide clarification of when a meeting took place informing Ms Hargreaves of the new insurance policy.
Ms Hargreaves was dismissed after the disciplinary hearing without any adjournment for further consideration. The reasons for her dismissal were that she lied to her manager in relation to her niece's age and allowed a child to ride a horse contrary to the company's insurance policy.
She appealed against her dismissal and explained that she had not let her niece on the horse again once she had understood the insurance issue in relation to her niece's age. As her appeal was unsuccessful, she claimed unfair dismissal.
The Tribunal held that Ms Hargreaves had not intentionally lied about her niece's age. She had not understood the importance of the child's age as the details of the recently amended insurance policy had not been communicated properly. The Tribunal was also critical that the investigation and disciplinary hearing were carried out by the same person and that the company failed to give further consideration to the dismissal decision after the disciplinary hearing.
The Tribunal held that Ms Hargreaves was unfairly dismissed. It was critical of her conduct but refused to reduce her compensation as there was no clear policy on when staff had to complete the forms for livery horses.
Best Practice
Employers should be mindful that if a procedure or rule is not communicated properly to an employee, a dismissal for breach thereof is unlikely to be fair. Dismissal will only be fair where there has been clear communication to the employee.
The Tribunal also criticised the company's procedural failures in the investigatory and disciplinary procedures. The failure to adjourn after a disciplinary hearing to carefully consider whether to dismiss an employee is likely to attract an unfair dismissal claim and the Tribunal does not look favourably on such action.
For more information, contact Caitlin Anniss on 0117 314 5264.
This publication is for guidance only. Reliance should not be placed upon it and nor should action be taken, without obtaining advice in respect of the specific circumstances applicable. We will be pleased to provide such advice or assistance.
