in person v Mr , consultant — 2019

Mr K Ram was employed by Midland Food Group Limited from October 2009, initially as a security guard and later as a security supervisor with additional checking duties. The tribunal accepted that there had been earlier management issues, including a grievance in 2017 about enhanced bank holiday pay, but found no evidence to support the claimant's suggestion that later allegations were part of a concerted effort to dismiss him. It also accepted that the respondent had reasonable grounds for the earlier warnings issued in relation to leaving his post and failing to ensure shift cover.

The dismissal arose from the claimant's handling of late orders for an important customer in May and June 2019. The tribunal found that he did not follow the instruction to check late orders before they were loaded, and that he delayed responding to repeated emails seeking an explanation. It accepted that Mr Lynch genuinely believed the claimant had committed conduct issues and, after considering the claimant's previous warnings and his refusal to accept responsibility, decided that dismissal was warranted. The tribunal noted there was some evidence that the claimant may have misunderstood the instruction, and that a demotion might have been reasonable, but that was not enough to make the dismissal unfair.

Applying s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996 and the band of reasonable responses test, the tribunal held that the procedure was fair and that the respondent's decision to dismiss, on notice, was within the range of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.