Mr A Davidson v UK Plumbing Supplies Ltd (t/a Plumco) Heard: by CVP on 8 November 2024 and, in chambers, on 5 December 2024 — 2024

Mr Davidson had been employed since 2008 and, after the business was transferred to the respondent under TUPE in 2023, worked in a warehouse/transport role arranging deliveries. The dismissal arose from a short altercation on 2 September 2023 with Jack Hobson after a period of friction between the claimant and members of the sales team. The tribunal found that the claimant grabbed Mr Hobson by the shirt and pushed him into boards after being told to "fuck off" and "stop being a dickhead". It accepted that the incident lasted only seconds, that the claimant apologised at the first investigatory meeting on 4 September, and that he had a clean disciplinary record.

Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, the tribunal accepted that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct. It nevertheless found that Mr Teesdale did not have reasonable grounds for the dismissal decision because he had not viewed the CCTV before dismissing, had not put two important allegations to the claimant, and had relied on accounts from other employees without properly testing them against the claimant's version. The tribunal also found that the respondent did not carry out a reasonable investigation into the claimant's account that he had been provoked and had previously complained about Mr Hobson's behaviour.

The procedure was also found to be fundamentally flawed. The respondent did not show the claimant the witness evidence or CCTV during the disciplinary process, and the appeal process repeated the same shortcomings: Mr Waterhouse did not provide the claimant with the material relied on, did not address all of the appeal points, and relied on an alleged warning from management that had not been put to the claimant. The tribunal concluded that dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair and that it fell outside the range of reasonable responses. It reduced the basic and compensatory awards by 35% for contributory conduct, but made no Polkey deduction.

The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded. The tribunal found that the claimant had more than 15 years' continuous service and was therefore entitled to 12 weeks' notice under section 86 ERA 1996. It held that the claimant's conduct on 2 September 2023 was blameworthy but, in the circumstances of the brief incident, the provocation and the prompt apology, did not amount to a fundamental or repudiatory breach entitling the respondent to dismiss without notice. The extracted judgment does not quantify the monetary award.