Nye had worked for the nightclub operator for 10 years and was the designated premises supervisor (DPS) on the nightclub’s premises licence. In April 2011 the police had a meeting with Nye and the nightclub operator after concerns about the high number of incidents of violent crime at the club. In particular, the police were unhappy that Nye had failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting the incidents.
Following a meeting in June 2011 the police applied to review the nightclub’s licence. The application stated that they had “failed to report occurrences of crime within the premises which in turn led to the loss of evidence and subsequent collapse of a number of investigations”. The police sought the removal of Nye as DPS as well as suspension of the club’s licence for six weeks.
The police’s stance in subsequent discussions was that the removal of Nye as the DPS was non-negotiable. The nightclub decided that Nye should be dismissed in order to avoid the ultimate sanction of the licensing authority, being revocation. On 18 July 2011 the company informed the police that they would be removing Nye as the DPS. On 19 July 2011 they wrote to Nye inviting him to a disciplinary meeting on 22 July 2011.
This was the first time Nye had been made aware that he could be dismissed. The disciplinary meeting was adjourned to 26 July 2011, when Nye was told he was to be dismissed. The reason given was “some other substantial reason due to third party pressure”. Nye’s appeal was unsuccessful as the nightclub felt that there was no suitable alternative to his position. Nye claimed unfair dismissal.
”Some other substantial reason” (including third-party pressure) is recognised by the employment tribunal as a potentially fair reason for dismissal and in this case the nightclub was able to show that the reason for Nye’s dismissal was the pressure put upon it by the police and the review application. There was a genuine and substantial risk that the nightclub could lose its licence.
However, the dismissal was found to be procedurally unfair. The decision to dismiss was made on 18 July 2011 before the company had discussed the risk of dismissal with Nye, who was not invited to the disciplinary meeting until 19 July 2011. The court felt that the meeting was to “rubber stamp” a decision that had previously been made by the nightclub and that they had not sought to consult with him or hear his view in advance of any decision being made.
The removal of the DPS is always an option to licensing authorities when reviewing a premises licence. Dismissing a DPS in circumstances such as these could be a fair reason for dismissal.
However, you must follow a fair procedure before reaching any decision. This would include informing the employee that their employment is at risk and why, inviting them to attend a meeting to discuss it, considering whether there is alternative redeployment of the employee and looking at whether or not it is reasonable in the overall circumstances to dismiss.
This case demonstrates the need to inform the employee as early as possible of any allegations against them and provide them with the evidence to respond. It’s only fair!