- MR A GLOAG FOR THE v - Mr S Foster — 2019

The claimant, Mr Dawes, was employed by Airbus UK Ltd from 6 October 1980 until his dismissal for gross misconduct on 16 April 2019. The case arose from a tender for hydraulic end cap cleaning. The tribunal found that there was a clear conflict of interest involving the claimant’s line manager AP and Aerocleaned Ltd, whose director was AP’s wife, and that the claimant had not reported that conflict to anyone other than AP himself. The tribunal also found that the claimant had assisted Aerocleaned in preparing material for its presentation to Airbus, including additions to the "Phrases to help" email, and had multiple opportunities to disclose the conflict but did not do so.

The claimant’s central case was that he had raised the conflict with AP on several occasions and had been reassured, so that he believed he had done enough. The tribunal rejected that account on the balance of probabilities, relying in particular on the fact that the claimant had not mentioned any such conversations in his investigatory interviews on 22 November 2018 and 7 January 2019, and had not raised it at the disciplinary hearing. It found the later account inconsistent with his earlier evidence and accepted the respondent’s conclusion that the claimant had assisted Aerocleaned and failed to discharge his duty to escalate a known conflict of interest.

Applying the Burchell questions and the range of reasonable responses test, the tribunal held that the respondent had a genuine belief, based on reasonable grounds after reasonable investigation, that the claimant had committed misconduct. It found that the conclusion that his conduct amounted to gross misconduct and justified summary dismissal was one a reasonable employer could reach, given his seniority, the length of time over which the conflict was not reported, and the commercial advantage given to Aerocleaned. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.

For wrongful dismissal, the tribunal applied the different question of whether, as a matter of fact, the claimant had committed a fundamental breach justifying summary dismissal. It concluded that his failure to report the conflict of interest, even on his own account, was sufficiently grave and weighty to justify dismissal. It referred to Adesokan v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd in support of that approach, and dismissed the wrongful dismissal claim. The unlawful deduction from wages and unpaid holiday pay claims had been withdrawn, and no remedy was awarded.