Mr. M Yasin v Albert Farnell Limited — 2020

The claimant, a smart repair technician at the respondent's Bradford Jaguar Land Rover dealership, was dismissed on 2 October 2019 after disciplinary proceedings arising from the incident on 10 September 2019. The tribunal also dealt with a notice pay claim and an unpaid holiday pay claim, both of which were dismissed. The judge recorded that the claimant had previously been through earlier disciplinary and grievance processes, but those matters did not establish any hidden agenda to dismiss him.

On the evidence about 10 September 2019, the tribunal found that the claimant entered the sales office saying "innocent man walking through" and then made comments to Jack Howden which were reasonably interpreted as aggressive and intimidating. It found that he was angry and swearing, and preferred the consistent evidence of the other witnesses over the claimant's denial. Although an audio recording showed that he did not swear directly at anyone, the tribunal accepted Simon Horabin's evidence that the recording did not displace the overall witness evidence about the tone and nature of the exchange.

The tribunal held that the principal reason for dismissal was conduct, namely foul, abusive, objectionable or insulting language or behaviour, bullying and intimidation, and a serious breach of the respondent's values or policies. It found that to be a potentially fair reason for dismissal and held that the respondent had an honest belief on reasonable grounds. The investigation was not rendered unreasonable by a limited number of leading questions, and the disciplinary process was found overall to be procedurally fair. The tribunal did find it unfair that the appeal stage treated the covert recording and its late disclosure as misconduct without telling the claimant that he faced disciplinary action for that matter, but held that this did not form part of the reason for dismissal and did not make the dismissal unfair.

In the alternative, the tribunal said that if the dismissal had been unfair, it would have found that the claimant would have been dismissed in any event and any compensatory award would have been reduced by 100%. It also said that the claimant's blameworthy conduct would have justified reducing both the basic and compensatory awards to nil. The wrongful dismissal/notice pay point failed because the claimant was paid in lieu of notice, and the holiday pay claim failed because no evidence was called to prove it.