Hooligans face the final whistle

What stance should employers take should their staff misbehave at the World Cup? Giving them the boot is not that easy, warns Mandy Perry

Anyone familiar with international football will know that the risk of hooliganism during this year's World Cup is real.

Not that the Japanese or Koreans need any persuasion on this point.

Both countries have been gearing their efforts to combat hooliganism since the day they were awarded the tournament.

The measures that have been introduced go further than in any previous World Cup.

England's games are being played in Japan and according to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office World Cup advice to travellers, any fan who breaks the law may be arrested and detained for up to 27 days while the police investigate the case.

This applies to even minor offences.

The Japanese authorities have hired a ferry which is on standby off Hokkaido island and will serve as a temporary prison for detainees while they are transported on a 20-hour journey to a detention centre in Ushiku just outside Tokyo.

During the World Cup in 1998, following some ugly scenes in France involving British hooligans, Prime Minister Tony Blair called on companies and the public sector alike to take 'strong action' against any of their employees who were involved in such misbehaviour.

Mr Blair called for disciplinary action or dismissals of those misbehaving in France.

Several national newspapers then conducted name-and-shame campaigns which led almost directly to the Court of Appeal case of the Post Office v Liddiard [2001] EWCA Civ 940.

Mr Liddiard was employed as a night-time coder by the Post Office.

Before the England-Tunisia match he was involved in the clashes between the opposing supporters in the streets of Marseilles.

He was convicted of armed attack on a police officer and was sentenced to 40 days' imprisonment.

In the meantime, Mr Liddiard was named and shamed in the Mirror and identified as a postman.

On his return to the UK, the Post Office dismissed Mr Liddiard for bringing the Royal Mail into disrepute.

The tribunal held that the dismissal of Mr Liddiard was unfair because in its view if Mr Blair had not called for the dismissals of such offenders causing the ensuing press coverage, the Post Office would not have sacked Mr Liddiard.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal held that it was the behaviour of the hooligans that should come first and it was that behaviour that caused statements in the Commons and the press uproar.

Therefore, it was the actions of Mr Liddiard and his fellow hooligans which brought the Post Office into disrepute and caused his dismissal.

So, can employers simply follow the suggestion of Mr Blair and dismiss any employee involved in hooliganism during this year's World Cup? For the answer one might consider the more sensible statement from Jack Straw (the then Home Secretary) who followed Mr Blair's statement in the House by suggesting that employers should look at the particular circumstances involved.

It is estimated that 8,000 England fans are attending the competition and given there will be roughly one policeman per fan the situation is unlikely to get too out of hand.

However, there is a risk that boisterous European fans could be interpreted as threatening by the police on the ground, which could lead to the detention of fans doing nothing more than having a drink and signing a song.

While it may be possible to dismiss employees as a result of their activities during this month, any dismissal of misbehaving football fans will have to be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Employers who act irrationally and dismiss without proper investigation of the incident, or fail to take mitigating circumstances into account regardless of what is said in Parliament or in our national newspapers, will be on sticky ground and may end up facing an unfair dismissal claim.

Mandy Perry is an associate in the employment group at the London office of Jones Day