In Person For the v Ms L. Gould – Counsel — 2021

The tribunal found that the claimant, a Team Manager Operations and Visual Merchandising at John Lewis plc’s Tamworth store, was dismissed on 2 May 2020 for conduct-related serious misconduct. The conduct relied on included his remark to his team that he did not know whether he could trust his managers, the subsequent meeting with those managers, and a WhatsApp message sent to his team questioning their management decisions and his future involvement.

Applying s.94 and s.98 ERA 1996, together with the Burchell approach and the range of reasonable responses analysis in Sainsbury v Hitt, the tribunal held that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had been guilty of misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a reasonable investigation. It accepted that the respondent had the relevant statements, suspended the claimant, held investigatory, disciplinary and appeal meetings, and gave him the opportunity to respond and be accompanied.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that the managers had colluded against him or that there was procedural unfairness or bias. It found that the disciplinary process, including the appeal heard by Mrs Mihell, was thorough and professional. Although the claimant raised mental health concerns, the tribunal found that the respondent took them seriously, adjourned the disciplinary meeting, obtained occupational health input, and used that information appropriately.

On sanction, the tribunal held that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses, even though some employers might have opted for a final warning and mediation. It also noted that the claimant’s Rule 71 argument was not raised in the disciplinary or appeal process and did not make the dismissal unfair. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed and no monetary remedy was awarded.