Final written warnings really are final!

Final written warnings really are final!


In the case of Davies v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council the Court of Appeal has confirmed that it is legitimate for an employer to rely on a final written warning when deciding to dismiss for a further act of misconduct providing that the final written warning was issued in good faith, that there was at least prima facie grounds for imposing it and that it was not manifestly inappropriate to issue it.

Following a period of suspension, Ms Davies was issued with a final written warning in February 2005 which she appealed. However, Ms Davies did not pursue her appeal for fear that an unsuccessful appeal could result in an increased sanction. The final written warning remained live on her file for 24 months and during this time, as a result of further complaints, Ms Davies was dismissed. In effecting her dismissal, the Council took account of both Ms Davies’ live final written warning and the further complaints.

Ms Davies brought a claim for unfair dismissal complaining that the final written warning was wrong and that the validity of the final written warning should be considered as part of her unfair dismissal claim. In upholding the decision of the Employment Tribunal, the Court of Appeal disagreed with Ms Davies. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the role of the Employment Tribunal was to decide whether the dismissal was fair which included consideration as to whether it was reasonable for the Council to rely on the previous warning. It was not the function of the Employment Tribunal to re-open the final written warning and rule on its validity. Such a course of action would only take place in limited circumstances.