Under the principles of interim reinstatement Mr C. had to prove he had an arguable case. The Authority had to decide that reinstating him was the best way to regulate the positions of the parties until the full hearing takes place. The Authority had to take a “global view” of the justice of the case.
Mr C. started work for Airworks five years previously as an apprentice and is now an electrician with a supervisory role. At the time of his dismissal he was 24 and had no previous disciplinary action.
Throughout his employment he always wore work shorts to work during summer and trousers in winter. In late December 2008 Airworks gave every employee a new uniform consisting of poly cotton shirts and two pairs of long trousers. His employment agreement required employees wear a uniform provided by the employer.
Some staff were allowed to wear shorts as part of the uniform but Mr C. was not because of where he worked in the premises. In January 2009 Mr C. asked if he could be supplied with cotton shirts as the poly cotton material was aggravating his eczema. The following week Mr P. had an informal meeting with Mr C. where Mr P. expressed concerns about Mr C.’s attitude to management. During that conversation Mr P. agreed to supply cotton shirts but asked why Mr C. was not wearing the uniform trousers. Mr C. replied that he wore shorts in summer and wanted to keep doing so.
Mr P. arranged for Mr C. to get the cotton shirts but had someone else in management pass onto Mr C. that he had to wear trousers. Mr C. said he did not want to and did not show up for work the next day.
On the following Monday Mr C. wore shorts to work. On the Tuesday he was called into a meeting and asked to explain why he was not wearing the uniform .Mr C. insisted he wanted to wear shorts because the trousers were not comfortable and would affect his eczema. Mr C. conducted an informal survey of his work mates and six other employees also said that they preferred to wear shorts. Mr P. was not happy with this describing it as Mr C. canvassing colleagues to “support his defiance”.
Anyway Mr C.’s defiance continued. The employer kept telling him not to wear shorts. Mr C. kept coming with shorts on. This all ended up with Mr P. telling Mr C. that the situation had become a “loss of trust and confidence issue” and he was fired. Mr P. described Mr C. as having an “angry and defiant mind-set”.
Under the first question did Mr C. have an arguable case the Authority said yes.
The Authority also found that in the current recessionary economic climate where the opportunities – particularly in such a specialised field of servicing helicopters – are likely to be very limited, damages would not be sufficient to compensate him for the loss of his job. Accordingly the Authority found that the employer had not established it would not be practicable for Mr C. to be reinstated nor was the overall justice of the case in favour of the employer.
Accordingly Mr C. was reinstated. It will be interesting to see if this matter settles or whether in fact it goes through to a final hearing. I will keep my eyes open and if it goes to a hearing I will let you know. You’d think they would just let him wear shorts ……..
