Mrs Lambkin (Wife of the Claimant) For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant, Mr D Lambkin, was dismissed by Ecosurety Limited for gross misconduct after disciplinary proceedings concerning the loss of a possible battery evidence contract with Copse Associates and his involvement in a 14 January 2019 meeting with Mr Timmins of Copse and Mr Redmayne of ERP. The tribunal found that gross misconduct was the reason for dismissal and that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had been involved in discussing Copse's business with a competitor, but the case turned on the fairness of the investigation and procedure.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent had reasonable grounds for its belief, relying in particular on Mr Redmayne's email describing the meeting and on the surrounding evidence. It found that the claimant had been involved in the discussion with ERP and Copse, and that this involved a significant conflict of interest to the detriment of the respondent. However, the tribunal held that the investigation was not reasonable because the claimant was not given the opportunity to address Mr Redmayne's email before the dismissal decision, and the respondent should have taken evidence from Mr Timmins when that point was raised on appeal.

The appeal did not cure the procedural defect because the claimant's first proper opportunity to respond to the key email was at appeal stage, after the original decision had been made. The tribunal therefore held that the dismissal was unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. On remedy, the tribunal found that, had a fair procedure been followed and the claimant been given the opportunity to address the key evidence, he would still have been fairly dismissed, but the process would have taken four weeks longer. It also found contributory conduct and reduced both the compensatory award and the basic award by 75%, and said any ACAS uplift would need to be addressed at a future remedy hearing.