representative Mr. Bob Marsh, Trade Union representative/Lay v Respondent — 2024

The claimant brought complaints of ordinary unfair dismissal and automatically unfair dismissal by reason of making protected disclosures. The respondent said the reason for dismissal was conduct, arising from events on 10 December 2022, and the tribunal considered whether the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, reasonable grounds, a reasonable investigation, procedural fairness, and whether dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.

The tribunal found that the overall process was fair and that the claimant had sufficient knowledge of the allegations by the time of the disciplinary hearing. It accepted that the dismissing officer considered mitigation including long service, a clean disciplinary record, character references, and neck problems, but concluded that dismissal was not outside the range of reasonable responses for a manager in a position of responsibility who had committed a physical assault on a member of the public and had not taken full accountability.

The tribunal dismissed both the ordinary unfair dismissal and automatically unfair dismissal complaints. For completeness, it found that any Polkey deduction would be 100% and that the claimant contributed 100% to his dismissal.