In Person v Respondent — 2023

Carl Guest was employed as a branch manager at Brandon Hire Station’s Wolverhampton depot from 2 January 2014 to 31 January 2022. The tribunal dismissed VP plc from the proceedings and treated Hire Station Limited as the correct respondent. The claim form advanced unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal by reason of protected disclosures, and an unlawful deductions claim for an unpaid bonus.

The tribunal accepted that the depot operated a G42 stock-control system with unique asset numbers, and that items from the quarantine area should not be removed or re-coded because of traceability and health and safety concerns. It found that an audit in February 2020 had already flagged the use of dump codes as non-compliant, yet the claimant continued to use them. The tribunal also found that the claimant created a manual header booking system, instructed others to use it, and had removed a turntable truck from the segregated do-not-touch area and put it out on hire. Although the appeal decision removed the allegation of misappropriation because there was no evidence of personal gain, the core findings of gross mismanagement, health and safety breach, and breakdown of trust and confidence were maintained.

On the whistleblowing complaint, the tribunal reviewed a long series of emails and phone calls said to be protected disclosures. It discounted three items because they were communications from others rather than disclosures by the claimant. It held that some of the remaining complaints, particularly those dated 13 November 2020, 2 December 2020, 9 January 2021, 5 February 2021, 13 May 2021 and 29 July 2021, could potentially be qualifying health and safety disclosures on the limited material before it. However, the decisive finding was that Mr Ingleby, who made the dismissal decision, was unaware of the alleged protected disclosures and was not influenced by Mr Laight or Mr Young. The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 therefore failed.

On ordinary unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the reason for dismissal was misconduct. Applying s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, it held that Mr Ingleby genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and conducted a reasonable investigation. The tribunal relied on witness evidence from colleagues and auditors, and found sufficient evidence that the claimant had used dump codes and a header system to circumvent the G42 controls. It also rejected the ACAS-based procedural complaints, finding that the claimant had the opportunity to ask questions, was allowed an alternative companion when his preferred companion could not attend, and was given reasons for dismissal on the day and in writing.

The bonus claim was dismissed because the tribunal found the bonus scheme was discretionary, not contractual, and that the claimant could not show any legal entitlement to a bonus for July to September 2021. The respondent had decided not to pay the bonus while disciplinary issues were ongoing. No monetary award was made.