Mr P Wood v Marston's plc — 2021

Mr Wood was employed by Marston’s plc as an Assistant Manager at The Woodman from 4 December 2004 until his summary dismissal on 24 September 2020. His role included responsibility for food hygiene and safety checks, including recording twice-daily temperature checks and weekly probe calibration checks in the kitchen book. The tribunal found that the respondent’s handbook treated falsification of records and breaches of health and safety rules as examples of gross misconduct.

The tribunal found that Mr Wood had signed off temperature probe check entries for 15 and 22 August 2020 after he had returned from self-isolation, even though he had not carried out the checks himself and had not taken steps to find out whether they had been done. It rejected his case that retrospective signing was common practice or that he had been instructed to complete paperwork fraudulently. It also accepted the respondent’s evidence that the January 2020 NSF audit concern did not drive the dismissal, because that issue was not pursued to any decision and the dismissal was based on the August 2020 records.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996, the tribunal held that misconduct was a potentially fair reason for dismissal, that the respondent genuinely believed Mr Wood had committed gross misconduct, and that belief was reasonably held after a reasonable investigation. It relied on the guidance in BHS v Burchell, Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones and Sainsbury’s Supermarket Ltd v Hitt when considering the investigation, the reasonableness of the belief, and whether dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal also recorded the statutory framework for remedy and Polkey, but because the dismissal was held fair it did not need to make any award.

The tribunal found the disciplinary and appeal process fair. Mr Wood was invited to disciplinary and appeal hearings, was accompanied at the disciplinary hearing, and had opportunities to explain his position. It concluded that dismissal was a reasonable sanction in light of the seriousness of falsifying temperature probe records, the potential health and safety consequences, and Mr Wood’s apparent indifference to the seriousness of the issue. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore dismissed. If dismissal had been unfair, the tribunal said it would have reduced the compensatory award by 100% for contributory conduct and the basic award by 100%.