Mr C Bermingham-McDonogh v Panasonic Manufacturing (UK) Ltd — 2020

The claimant, a long-serving director and company secretary, was dismissed on 20 March 2019 after the respondent investigated his handling of the HR manager’s disciplinary process, her long-term sickness absence, and the response to her subject access request. The tribunal accepted that the respondent’s stated reason for dismissal was conduct, namely alleged gross negligence, and treated references to trust and confidence as part of that conduct case rather than a separate reason for dismissal.

Applying the Burchell approach and section 98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed misconduct had occurred and had reasonable grounds to conclude that the claimant had failed to manage aspects of the HR manager’s case properly. However, it identified a number of procedural failings, including Mr Jones’s role as both grievance investigator and disciplinary investigator, the claimant not being given the grievance itself, an unjustified suspension on 1 February 2019, and some matters not being fully explored at the disciplinary hearing. The tribunal held that those defects did not materially affect the outcome, and it rejected any finding that the disciplinary process had been pre-determined.

The tribunal nevertheless held that dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses. It accepted that the claimant had admitted some failings, but considered dismissal disproportionate in light of the context, including the difficulty of managing the HR manager’s case, the limited proportion of the claimant’s role that involved HR matters, and his nearly 28 years of unblemished service. It rejected a Polkey reduction, finding that a fairer process would not have made dismissal likely, and also rejected any uplift for the way the claimant’s grievance was handled.

On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal held that the claimant’s conduct did not amount to gross or grave misconduct within the meaning of the service agreement. Summary termination was therefore not justified. The judgment recorded that both the basic award and compensatory award for unfair dismissal would be reduced by 25% for contributory conduct, and that damages for wrongful dismissal would reflect six months’ notice, but the amount of compensation was left for a further remedy hearing.