Mr J Ramos v Parfums Christian Dior Limited — 2017

The tribunal dealt only with a single claim of unfair dismissal. At the start of the hearing it was established that the Claimant was not pursuing any claim of unlawful discrimination. There was also discussion about holiday pay, but after concessions in cross-examination the tribunal recorded that there was in fact no such claim.

The Respondent admitted dismissal. It relied on conduct as the potentially fair reason under s.98(2) ERA 1996. The tribunal found that the Claimant had been employed as a Stockroom Controller at the Respondent's concession unit in Selfridges, Birmingham, and that his job involved responsibility for stock management. The disciplinary case arose after concerns were raised by Selfridges in April 2018 about stock losses and manifest discrepancies, leading to the Claimant's suspension, disciplinary hearing, and eventual dismissal. The tribunal also noted a live written warning dated 11 September 2017, and that the relevant events occurred shortly after stock management training in November 2017.

Applying the Burchell approach and s.98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal was satisfied that the Respondent genuinely believed the misconduct had occurred, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a reasonable investigation. It found that the Claimant had been given the opportunity to respond, had been supplied with the relevant material, and had been informed of the reasons for dismissal. The tribunal accepted that the Respondent was entitled to treat the conduct as sufficiently serious, particularly because it resulted in financial loss and the temporary withdrawal of the Claimant's store approval.

The tribunal concluded that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It did not find it necessary to decide the matter on any alternative Polkey or contributory conduct basis, and it said the appeal process was not material to the fairness question before it.