Mr S. Purnell (Counsel) v Respondent — 2021

The claimant, Maritime Security Operations Manager, was dismissed without notice on 12 December 2019 for gross misconduct arising from an ISPS verification training course he delivered in February 2019. The tribunal found that he told trainees that some security deficiencies should not necessarily be recorded for fear of damaging the UK flag, and that he showed a video of alleged bribery on board a UK vessel while saying he had done nothing about it. It also found a further misconduct issue in relation to an expenses claim for a train ticket for a police officer, which was under PS8 and was a breach of the expenses rules. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had a reasonable belief in misconduct on reasonable grounds and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.

The ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the process was procedurally unfair. The tribunal held that the decision-maker did not expressly consider the difference between serious misconduct and gross misconduct, did not expressly address mitigation such as length and record of service, and did not reason whether the expenses claim was dishonest or an honest mistake. It said a fairer approach might have resulted in a final warning or demotion rather than dismissal. The tribunal therefore found the dismissal unfair, but reduced any compensatory award by 85% on Polkey grounds and reduced the basic award by 85%; it made no further contributory fault reduction to the compensatory award. No final monetary totals were set out in the judgment.

The automatic unfair dismissal claim based on protected disclosure failed. The claimant relied on emails dated 23 and 27 February 2017 about concerns that confidential information had been shared during a recruitment process for an Assistant Director post and that this might affect fairness and impartiality. The tribunal held that, even assuming those emails were protected disclosures under s.43B and s.103A ERA 1996, they had no part in the dismissal decision. The tribunal found that the real reason for dismissal was the misconduct identified from the training course and the expenses issue. The wrongful dismissal claim also failed because the tribunal found the training-course conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract, so the respondent was entitled to dismiss without notice; it did not need to rely on the rail-ticket allegation to reach that conclusion.