Case 1806679/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Flood v Chemfix Products Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1806679/2023
- Decision date
- 15 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley On
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Flood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Edwards complained that Mr Flood had bullied her in the Mixing Shed, including by making comments about her training, being involved in betting on how long she would last, moving her gloves, and speaking to her in the canteen after she stepped down. The respondent suspended Mr Flood on 1 June 2023, investigated the complaint through Ms Greenwood, held a disciplinary hearing on 14 June 2023, and rejected the appeal on 26 July 2023. The tribunal found that the dismissal reason was the respondent's belief that Mr Flood's conduct towards Ms Edwards amounted to gross misconduct.
For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that the process was not perfect: Ms Greenwood investigated and also had a limited role in the disciplinary and appeal process, and later manager and team-leader statements were not provided to the claimant during the internal process. However, it held that the respondent complied with the ACAS Code in substance, carried out a thorough investigation, gave Mr Flood enough information to answer the case, allowed him to be accompanied, and that Mr Murray and Mr Palomo were sufficiently senior to decide the matter. Applying the Burchell approach and the band of reasonable responses test, the tribunal concluded that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.
On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal made its own findings on the alleged conduct. It found that Mr Flood was involved in betting about how long Ms Edwards would last, but that Mr Townend instigated the betting; that Mr Flood commented that Ms Edwards would be the best trained because she had received more training than existing staff; that he moved her gloves but did not put them under the sink; and that he went to the canteen with Mr Townend to ask why she had left, with Mr Townend leading most of the conversation. The tribunal held that those matters were misconduct but did not amount to gross misconduct or a repudiatory breach of contract, so the wrongful dismissal claim succeeded and Mr Flood was awarded 12 weeks' notice pay on a net basis.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed Mr Flood because it believed his conduct towards Ms Edwards amounted to gross misconduct. Although there were some procedural imperfections, it held that the investigation and disciplinary process were fair in the round and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal made its own findings on the alleged conduct and held that Mr Flood was involved in betting, made a comment about Ms Edwards being the best trained, moved her gloves, and went to the canteen with Mr Townend, but that these matters did not amount to gross misconduct or a repudiatory breach of contract. It awarded 12 weeks' notice pay on a net basis, but no monetary figure is stated in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd
- Gestmin SGPS v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd
- Enable Care and Home Support Ltd v Pearson
- British Heart Foundation v Roy
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.