Mr S Merrell v Bell Decorating Group Limited — 2022

Mr Merrell brought claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages. He also mentioned victimisation in his original ET1, but at the outset of the hearing he confirmed that he was not pursuing an Equality Act claim, and he later confirmed that the second claim form, 1401252/2021, was withdrawn. The tribunal heard evidence from Mr Merrell, Nick Owen and Andrew Blackmoor, and accepted that Mr Owen was independent of the grievance process and unaware of Mr Merrell's grievance about travel payments.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found as a fact that Mr Merrell did not urinate behind a customer's shed, rejecting the indirect colleague evidence relied on by Bell Decorating Group. Even so, it held that the reason for dismissal was Mr Owen's belief, formed from the witness evidence and the HSE complaint, that Mr Merrell had urinated on a customer's property. That was treated as a potentially fair reason under s.98(1)(b) ERA 1996, and the tribunal applied s.98(4), the Burchell approach and the range of reasonable responses test. It concluded that the investigation was reasonable, the procedure was fair and in line with the employer's disciplinary policy and the ACAS Code, and dismissal for gross misconduct fell within the range of reasonable responses.

On unlawful deductions, Mr Merrell said he should have been paid petrol, mileage and vehicle upkeep because he used his own van. The tribunal found there was no express or implied contractual term giving him that entitlement, no written agreement, and no other basis for the payments sought. It therefore dismissed the claim and recorded no monetary award.