‘Some other substantial reason’ employment dismissals

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has recently considered the question of whether there is a higher threshold for an employer who seeks to dismiss an employee fairly for ‘some other substantial reason’.

Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, there are five potentially fair reasons to dismiss, the final one being ‘some other substantial reason’ which usually covers situations which do not fall within one of the other more specific categories.

In a recent case, the EAT held that an employer dismissed fairly in those circumstances. The employee was a nurse who, after obtaining British citizenship, had her citizenship revoked due to concerns the Home Office had about her identity.  After discovering the true position, (the employee not having reported this to the employer), the employer conducted a disciplinary process regarding the concerns over the employee’s identity and conduct (not reporting the revocation), and the decision was made to dismiss the employee.

After the employee brought a claim, the Employment Tribunal held that the employee had been dismissed on two grounds: (1) concerns about her identity, and; (2) her failure to report that fact that her citizenship and passport had been revoked. The principle reason for dismissal was found to be due to ‘some other substantial reason’:  that the employer could not be certain about the employee’s identity which was crucial for her role.

The employee appealed to the EAT which decided that there is not a particularly high threshold for fairness in ‘no fault’ ‘some other substantial reason’ dismissals as the employee argued. The EAT considered existing case law which noted that in these types of situations, employers should be able to rely on the information they receive from a public authority (such as the Home Office) without having to investigate too far behind what they are told by the official source.

The case confirms that ‘some other substantial reason’ dismissals do not require the employer to establish a higher threshold of fairness. However, without the specific facts of this case (the employee being a nurse and the employer being an NHS trust), the outcome may have been different.