Mr N Baldwin v Harsco Metals Group Limited — 2020

The claimant was employed as a machine operator from around 11 May 2008 and was summarily dismissed on 4 October 2019 following an incident on 1 October 2019 involving a clocking-in machine. The respondent’s case was that the claimant had struck the screen, damaging it, and then gave an account to Mr Cotter which was inconsistent with the CCTV evidence. The tribunal recorded that the claimant said he had tapped the screen because the machine was not working properly and that he did not intend to damage it.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that Mr Bennett genuinely believed the claimant had deliberately struck the machine and had not been honest with Mr Cotter. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell test, the tribunal held that this belief was based on reasonable grounds and a reasonable investigation, including witness statements, Mr Bennett’s own observations, and the CCTV footage. Although the invitation to the disciplinary meeting did not squarely allege dishonesty, the tribunal held that the point was put to the claimant at the hearing and any defect was capable of being cured on appeal.

The tribunal also found that dismissal for gross misconduct was within the band of reasonable responses. It accepted that Mr Bennett considered alternatives such as a written warning and payment for the damage, but concluded that the central issue was loss of trust arising from the claimant’s lack of candour in a safety-critical working environment. The appeal manager, Mr Feehan, upheld the dismissal after checking the claimant’s service and disciplinary history, and the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.

On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal itself found on the balance of probabilities that the claimant did strike the screen of the clocking-in machine. It found that he did not do so with an intent to cause damage, but that he was not forthcoming about what had happened and knowingly denied striking the machine when interviewed by Mr Cotter. The tribunal held that this conduct, taken with the striking of the machine, amounted to gross misconduct and a repudiatory breach of contract by the claimant, so the wrongful dismissal claim was also dismissed.