Mr A Smith v Centrica Storage Limited HELD: by CVP — 2021

The claimant, an electrical consultant lead employed since 10 September 2007, was dismissed on 29 January 2020 after the respondent concluded that he had installed an overload protection unit into MCC7 on 23 October 2019 without the required permit to work. The tribunal found that the claimant accepted the absence of a permit and the incorrect installation, and that he knew the respondent’s permit procedure and the potential seriousness of breaching it. The work later led to overheating and an arc flash on 5 November 2019, and the tribunal accepted that an investigation was started and that the claimant did not dispute the investigation report.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal applied section 98 ERA 1996 and asked whether the respondent had a genuine and reasonable belief in misconduct, carried out a reasonable investigation, acted procedurally fairly, and whether dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. It found that the reason for dismissal was misconduct, that there were reasonable grounds for that belief, and that the investigation was detailed and accepted by the claimant. The tribunal also found no procedural unfairness. It noted that the claimant was a long-serving employee with a good disciplinary record, but held that the respondent was entitled to treat the breach of its health and safety permit procedures as serious enough to justify summary dismissal for gross misconduct.

The dismissal decision was taken by Mr Rogers after an adjournment for advice from human resources and further research, and the appeal was later heard by Dr Orley on 20 February 2020. The appeal letter dated 26 February 2020 upheld the dismissal. Dr Orley rejected the claimant’s appeal grounds, including allegations of management complicity, pressure from Mr Brewster, and wider procedural failures, and concluded that Mr Rogers had sufficient reason to believe gross misconduct had occurred.

Because the tribunal rejected the unfair dismissal claim, it held that the breach of contract claim also failed. It found there was no breach of contract by the respondent in dismissing the claimant, and both claims were dismissed.