Re-instatement/re-engagement can be refused if the working relationship has been destroyed
Facts
Mr Wolff was unfairly dismissed from his position as a teacher at an academy school owned by academy chain The Oasis Community Group. He applied for re-engagement at another Oasis academy anywhere in the United Kingdom. Oasis resisted. They argued that re-engagement was not “practicable” because personal attacks by Mr Wolff against his employer and ex-colleagues during the disciplinary and tribunal process had left mutual trust and confidence beyond repair. The tribunal disagreed and made a re-engagement order at a school located 200 miles away from his former workplace. Oasis appealed.
Ruling
The EAT refused to interfere with the tribunal’s re-engagement order. The EAT judges agreed that a re-instatement or re-engagement order can be refused on the basis of “practicality” if an employee’s behaviour during the litigation process has so soured the working relationship that it is impossible to work together again. However, in this case, re-engagement was to a school 200 miles away and the parties should be able to put the dispute behind them.
Commentary
Re-engagement and re-instatement orders are very rare. It is not unusual for unrepresented claimants to make virulent personal allegations amid the anger and stress of a claim for unfair dismissal. Reps can help by reminding members that too much anger directed towards their ex-employer during the internal disciplinary process or any later litigation can result in an order for re-engagement being refused.