Mr R Ennis (Solicitor) For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant, a refuse worker who had transferred from Sandwell Council to Serco in 2010, was dismissed for misconduct following a series of issues in early 2018. The tribunal found that he had been involved in a verbal altercation with a member of the public on 26 January 2018, had a prior warning on his record, and had later failed to engage promptly with the investigation because of his working pattern and absences. It also accepted that he later apologised to Mrs Hartland, although that did not alter the dismissal decision.

On the dependant-care absence, the tribunal found that when the claimant telephoned the absence line on 29 January 2018 he said only 'carers leave'. It found that he did not tell the respondent that his son was ill and that he did not satisfy the statutory requirements for time off under s57A ERA 1996. It also found that the respondent had tried several times to contact him during the period of absence, that the Sandwell carers scheme required approval, and that the absence was treated as unauthorised.

On the trade union allegation, the tribunal found that the claimant was not an elected Unite representative at the time he attended the course from 5 to 9 March 2018. It found that the course was within his working hours, that he had been told on several occasions that he did not have permission to attend, and that he ignored instructions from management and from Unite’s regional officer to return to work. The tribunal therefore rejected the automatic unfair dismissal arguments based on trade union activity and dependant-related time off.

Applying s98 ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was conduct. It accepted the respondent’s evidence that Mr Mason honestly believed the misconduct allegations, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out a reasonable investigation. The tribunal also found that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses, and that the appeal officer upheld the decision after further enquiries. The claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal, both ordinary and automatic, was dismissed and no award was made.