Mr D Haddrick v The Phoenix Partnership (Leeds) Limited — 2019

Mr D Haddrick was employed by The Phoenix Partnership (Leeds) Limited as a software developer from 29 September 2014 until his dismissal on 20 March 2019. The respondent relied on conduct, or alternatively some other substantial reason, arising from what it described as a breakdown of trust and confidence after conversations in February 2019 about comments the claimant was said to have made concerning Mr Frank Hester, new technologies, and the company’s management. The claimant said the circumstances did not justify dismissal and claimed compensation of £34,792.56 if his unfair dismissal claim succeeded.

The tribunal found that the dismissal decision was made by Ms Charlotte Russell, not by Mr Hester. It accepted her evidence that she investigated the matter, suspended the claimant, held the disciplinary hearing, took further enquiries after that hearing, and decided on dismissal because she genuinely believed the claimant had not been truthful and that trust and confidence had been lost. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had the chance to explain the disputed comments, particularly the difference between saying Mr Hester was "manipulative" and saying he was "charismatic", but found that he did not resolve that conflict in his favour and did not persuade Ms Russell that trust remained intact.

The tribunal also found that the appeal was handled by Dr Christopher Bates, who carried out a fresh review over four days and considered the claimant’s grounds, the procedure, and the ACAS Code. It accepted that any procedural issues were addressed at appeal and that Dr Bates had reasonable grounds to uphold the dismissal. Applying section 98(2) and section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and proceeding on the Burchell approach as argued by both parties, the tribunal held that the respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal, acted reasonably in treating it as sufficient, and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal complaint therefore failed and was dismissed.