Mr P Martin (Employment Consultant) For v Respondent — 2019

Ms C Massey was employed by TUI UK Retail Limited as a Retail Manager from 9 June 2008 until her dismissal on 23 January 2018. The tribunal recorded that the respondent dismissed her for gross misconduct arising from her contact with SA after the claimant's grievance against Ms Waterhouse and from homophobic banter in the shop, including use of the term "BFL" meaning "Big Fat Lesbian". The claimant said the dismissal was retaliation for her grievance, and she also argued that the disciplinary process was unfair because the hearing proceeded when she said she was unfit and because she was not given the witness statements before the hearing or appeal.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that the dismissal was orchestrated in retaliation for her grievance. It found that the complaints from the four store employees were genuine, that Mrs Ecclestone and Mrs Taylor were independent witnesses, and that the misconduct found by the respondent was the true and sole reason for dismissal. The tribunal accepted that Mrs Ecclestone and Mrs Taylor genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct and that those beliefs were based on ample evidence, including the employees' statements and the claimant's own admissions.

On procedure, the tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to proceed in line with occupational health advice that the claimant was fit to attend a meeting by 22 January 2018. Although there had been some procedural muddle because the matter began as a grievance investigation, the tribunal held that the failure to disclose the other employees' statements did not make the process unfair in this case because the claimant admitted contacting SA inappropriately and later admitted participating in the homophobic banter. The tribunal also held that the investigation was comprehensive and that the respondent had acted reasonably in treating the conduct as a sufficient reason for dismissal.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had long service and a previously clean record, but held that summary dismissal was still within the range of reasonable responses. It therefore found that the claimant was fairly dismissed and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.