Case 1600161/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs H Hodgetts v Compass Group UK & Ireland Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600161/2018
- Decision date
- 10 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Members
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Mrs B A Currie, Mrs P Palmer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs H Hodgetts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was summarily dismissed after allegations concerning management control, financial management, and hygiene and food safety in a school kitchen. The tribunal found that the respondent had taken adequate steps to train the claimant and had previously put support measures in place, including performance improvement plans, removing responsibility for one site while retaining salary, and setting out detailed duties.
On disability discrimination, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had depression but found the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that she was disabled. It found that the April 2016 discussion showed the claimant was experiencing mental health issues at that time, but, in context, was not sufficient to amount to constructive knowledge of disability. The tribunal also found the claimant had not shown how her depression placed her at a substantial disadvantage in relation to the standards required, or what further support should reasonably have been provided.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant for conduct and that Mr Cox had an honest and genuine belief, on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, that the allegations were made out. The tribunal considered the financial-control matters to be more capability-related than misconduct, but found it was within the range of reasonable responses to treat the management-control and food-safety matters as gross misconduct, particularly given the claimant's role and final written warning. Although the disciplinary invitation did not state that the allegations were potentially gross misconduct, the tribunal held that this procedural error did not render the dismissal unfair because the claimant did not take part in the process.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was for conduct, a potentially fair reason, and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses despite one procedural error in the disciplinary invitation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim was for failure to make reasonable adjustments. The respondent conceded disability for the hearing but disputed knowledge. The tribunal found no constructive knowledge and, in any event, that the reasonable adjustments claim was not made out. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
17 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell [1980] ICR 303
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1982] IRLR 439
- band of reasonable responses
- Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust v Westwood
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] IRLR 503
- s.207(2) TULRCA 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary procedure
- s.122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Steen v ASP Packaging Ltd [2014] ICR 56
- ss.20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- s.20(3) Equality Act 2010
- Environment Agency v Rowan [2008] ICR 218
- paragraph 20, Schedule 8 Equality Act 2010
- EHRC Code of Practice on Employment
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.