Employment Tribunal Written Reasons must contain sufficient detail to understand the decision

Rule 30 and 'Meek' are the basis for well written judgments

Greenwood v. NWF Retail Ltd [2011] UKEAT/0409/09/JOJ

    Helping You     About     Links     Contact     Site Info     HOME

• The statutory obligation to give reasons requires the employment tribunal to explain the judgment in sufficient detail.
• A substantial failure to comply with rule 30(6) amounts to an error of law.
• As to whether a judgement complies substantially with the Rule, the Meek approach should be 'kept in mind'.
• "Justice will not be done if it is not apparent to the parties why one has won and the other has lost." English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 2409
• The adequacy of reasons depends on the nature of the case (Flannery's case [2000] 1 WLR 377, 382)
• Section 98A(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 does not apply where there has been a breach of Statutory Procedures
• Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd v Wilcox [2006] EWCA Civ 1240; [2007] IRLR 63 applied.
• Short v Hayman UKEAT/0379/08/CEA is revoked.

The claimant argued that his redundancy was a sham and that he had been unfairly dismissed pursuant to section 98A (1) of the Employment Rights Act. The ET had decided that although the claimant had been automatically unfairly dismissed according to section 98A (1) of the Employment Rights Act the dismissal was fair. The ET award was basic without a compensatory element.

The claimant appealed to the EAT arguing that the ET's failure to give proper reasons for its judgment amounted to a failure to comply with rule 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 SI No. 1861 which is intended to enable the parties to understand how the case has been decided, and as such amounted to a substantive error of law.

The EAT (HHJ HAND QC) agreed and ruled that where an employment tribunal decision fails to comply in form and substance with Rule 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 SI No. 1861 this will amount to an error of law.

In this case the Employment Tribunal failed in the judgment to deal with the clamant's assertion that a vacancy for a job at his level had been available but not given him, thus contravening paragraphs (c) and (e) of rule 30(6) by failing to explain its findings. As to whether the redundancy was a sham the judgment failed to identify what treatment other managers had received and that to arguments as to whistleblowing, the motive of the employer rather than about Protected Disclosure needed to be dealt with.

As to the need for a reasoned decision Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd v Crabtree [1974] ICR 120 at 122B-C was quoted wherbey it is, "an error of law for a tribunal simply to state the amount of compensation which is to be awarded without showing how the figure is arrived". The reason for this that without reasons any error of law can't be determined.

The judgment of Bingham LJ. in Meek v City of Birmingham was until 2004 the benchmark for tribunals as to whether a decision was adequately reasoned (Meek compliant'):

"the decision of an Industrial Tribunal is not required to be an elaborate formalistic product of refined legal draftsmanship, but it must contain an outline of the story which has given rise to the complaint and a summary of the Tribunal's basic factual conclusions and a statement of the reasons which have led them to reach the conclusion which they do on those basic facts. The parties are entitled to be told why they have won or lost. There should be sufficient account of the facts and of the reasoning to enable the EAT or, on further appeal, this court to see whether any question of law arises."

Flannery's case [2000] 1 WLR 377, 382 gave pointers as to the adequacy of reasons being in part dependant on the nature of the case but the relevant issues vital to the judge's decision needing to be identified along with explaining the manner in which they were resolved in the absence of a template for the process or even a lengthy judgement. Flannery calls for the judge to identify and record matters critical to the decision and if a critical issue involves fact a brief explanation is needed as to why one witness is preferred over another.

Meek served to reject the need for full reasons for each part of a decision, but is against the reasoning of Short v Hayman which argued that employment tribunal failing to comply with rule 30(6) was not an error in law. Meek served to remind tribunals to explain their findings in sufficient detail regarding the components of a ruling to enable the parties to understand the conclusions reached. Apart from the legislatory aspect any subsequent appeals depend on knowing how tribunals came to make their decisions. So although tribunals do not need to be overly confined they do need to structure judgments according to the requirements of rule 30(6).

The EAT in allowing the appeal and referring the case to be reheard before a new employment tribunal mentioned that although rule 30(6) should not be used 'as a straitjacket', the ET had not articulated the issues or corresponding facts adequately nor properly explained its reasons for reaching its conclusions. These failures meant that the judgment did not comply with Rule 30(6) and was erroneous in law.

1. the issues relevant to the claim;
2. b) explaining why any issues are not determined;
3. c) findings of fact for issues;
4. d) a concise statement of the applicable law;
5. e) how the relevant findings of fact and applicable law have been applied in determining issues;
6. f) explaining awards and costs calculations

Other Cases referred to:

Allied Trades and Technicians v Brain [1981] ICR 542 - reasons need to be given but the failure to deal with all points is not critical;     Alexander v Brigden Enterprises Ltd [2006] ICR 1277 - Section 98A(2) not applying where an automatically unfair dismissal results from a failure to follow statutory dismissal procedures;     Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree[1974] I.C.R. 120;     Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd v Wilcox [2006] EWCA Civ 1240; [2007] IRLR 63;     Cooper v British Steel Corporation [1975] ICR 454;     Eagil Trust Ltd v Pigott-Brown [1985] 3 All ER119 - When giving reasons a judge does not need to deal with every argument presented by counsel in support of his case;     English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 2409 - "justice will not be done if it is not apparent to the parties why one has won and the other has lost."     Levy v Marrable & Co Ltd [1984] I.C.R. 583 - An Employment Tribunal must articulate why it reaches a conclusion on disputed factual matters;      Martin v Glynwed Distribution Ltd [1983] ICR 198;      Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250;     Norton Tool Co. Ltd. V. Tewson [1972] I.C.R. 510 - error of law for a tribunal simply to state the amount of compensation which is to be awarded without showing how the figure is arrived;    Retarded Children’s Society v Day [1978] ICR 437;     *Polkey consideration of 'just and equitable' - Gover v Propertycare Ltd [2006] ICR 1073, Scope v Thornett [2207] 1 ICR 236, Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews [2007] 1 ICR 825     Sachs LJ in Knight v Clifton [1971];     Varndell v Kearney & Trecker Marwin Ltd 1983 1 ICR 683;    

© 2011 Workrep