In person For the v Mr Muirhead, consultant — 2020

The tribunal held that Mr Martin Burton was unfairly dismissed by Spencer Signs Ltd and that the dismissal was also wrongful. It accepted that the Respondent dismissed him for conduct, including alleged poor workmanship, speeding in a works vehicle, and falsifying a timesheet, but found material defects in both the investigation and the decision-making. The judge found Mr Stephenson was not impartial, had pre-judged matters, and placed undue weight on allegations that were not properly investigated or fairly put to the Claimant.

On the workmanship allegations, the tribunal found the Respondent did not carry out a reasonable investigation into the Clipper sign and did not investigate the Claimant's case that he had followed the TK Maxx manager's instructions on site. It also found that the allegation about leaving a Unistrut was not fairly used, because it had not been put to the Claimant at the disciplinary hearing. On the speeding allegations, the tribunal accepted the Claimant had been driving a company vehicle above the speed limit on the occasions relied on, but held that speeding was not treated in the Respondent's documents as gross misconduct and that the sanction of dismissal for gross misconduct was outside the range of reasonable responses.

The tribunal further found that the Respondent was wrong to treat the timesheet entry as deliberate falsification. It accepted the Claimant had told management about the speed awareness course and had expected to be paid because the arrangement with Mr Johnson and Mr Goucher had changed when the Clipper job overran. The tribunal concluded there was no falsification, at most carelessness, and that dismissal on that basis as gross misconduct was unreasonable. It also held that the Claimant had been issued with a final written warning before the dismissal process began.

As to procedure, the tribunal found the Claimant was deprived of a fair appeal because Mr Stephenson refused to allow the appeal to proceed. It held that the ACAS Code applied and that the Respondent's failure to provide a proper appeal was unreasonable, so a 10% uplift under section 207A TULCRA was justified. On Polkey, the tribunal found that if a proper procedure had been followed, the Claimant would nevertheless have been dismissed for misconduct with notice because of the speeding allegations and the final written warning, so there was a 100% reduction to the compensatory award. It also found the Claimant contributed to his dismissal by culpable conduct and reduced the basic award by 50%. The tribunal held the Claimant was entitled to 9 weeks' notice pay for wrongful dismissal, with the same 10% uplift in principle, but no final monetary totals were set because remedy was left to be agreed or listed later.