Mr Paul Robson v Collett Holdings Ltd — 2021

Mr Paul Robson was dismissed by Collett Holdings Ltd on 10 September 2020 after a dispute on 4 September 2020 about holiday leave. The tribunal found that he had a heated exchange with Mr Michael Collett, that he said he would not attend work on Monday 7 September, and that the respondent then treated his absence as unauthorised and arranged cover for his work. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s evidence that Mr Thornton told the claimant on 7 September that he was being invited to an investigatory meeting, and rejected the claim that he had been misled into attending only an informal chat.

The tribunal found that the lay-off of the claimant was contractually authorised and was not itself a disciplinary sanction. It also found that the disciplinary invitation was sent after the investigation meeting, not handed over at the start of it, and that the notice period before the disciplinary hearing was sufficient. Although the claimant was not given written copies of all witness material before the disciplinary hearing, the tribunal found he knew the substance of the evidence against him and had a fair opportunity to respond. It also held that refusing the claimant’s request to record the disciplinary meeting did not make the procedure unfair.

On the substantive dismissal issue, the tribunal applied section 98 ERA 1996, the Burchell test, and the band of reasonable responses approach. It found that the respondent honestly believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a reasonable investigation. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had refused a management instruction to attend work on Monday 7 September, that the instruction was reasonable, and that the respondent was entitled to regard that refusal as gross misconduct. It rejected the claimant’s reliance on inconsistent treatment involving Mr Radio and previous occasions when short-notice holiday had been allowed, finding those situations were not truly comparable.

The tribunal also rejected the claimant’s procedural objections about the appeal. It found that the appeal hearing was held on an agreed date without undue delay, that the claimant had no statutory right to be accompanied by a friend or relative, that he did not in fact ask to record the appeal hearing, and that the appeal minutes were not tampered with. It was satisfied that Mr Jack Collett made the appeal decision himself and was not unfairly influenced by Mr Thornton. The tribunal therefore held that the dismissal was not unfair and no Polkey reduction or remedy calculation was required.