Case 1811573/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Bedrock Bars Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1811573/2018
- Decision date
- 29 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Todd worked for Bedrock Bars Limited from 5 August 2016 and became General Manager and Designated Premises Supervisor on 22 February 2018. After a heated argument on 6 August 2018 about a stock count, the Tribunal found that Mr Westwell told him he was dismissed. The Company later sent a suspension letter, arranged an investigation and disciplinary process through external consultants, and ultimately wrote on 2 September 2018 purporting to dismiss him for gross misconduct. The claim for accrued holiday pay due on termination was resolved by consent and succeeded in the sum of £28.85.
On unfair dismissal, the Tribunal accepted that Mr Todd had been insubordinate in vociferously resisting a reasonable management instruction to carry out a stock take, but it found that immediate dismissal on the spot was not a reasonable response. The Tribunal held that a reasonable employer would have followed a proper disciplinary process in line with the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary procedures. It therefore concluded that the dismissal was unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996.
The Tribunal calculated a basic award of £1,730.76 and reduced it by 75% for Mr Todd's conduct, leaving £432.69. For the compensatory award, it assessed net loss and statutory rights at £22,057.40, reduced that figure for a 60% Polkey chance of dismissal even after a fair process and a further 15% for other misconduct, increased the award by 25% for the Company's failure to comply with the ACAS Code, and then reduced it by 10% for contributory conduct. The final compensatory award was £6,203.65 and the total compensation for unfair dismissal was £6,636.34.
The breach of contract claim for notice pay failed. Although the Tribunal accepted that the parties' contract provided for two weeks' notice, it found that Mr Todd's conduct was repudiatory and released the Company from its contractual obligation to give notice. It also found that he had been paid until 2 September 2018, beyond the end of any notice period, so no recoverable loss was shown.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Accrued holiday pay due on termination was resolved by consent during the hearing. | Settled | — | £29 |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found that Mr Westwell dismissed Mr Todd on 6 August 2018, that the dismissal was for conduct related to his resistance to a stock-take instruction, and that the dismissal was unfair because a reasonable employer would have followed a proper disciplinary process. The final award comprised a basic award of £432.69 and a compensatory award of £6,203.65. | Upheld | — | £6,636 |
| Breach of contract | The claim for damages for breach of the contractual right to notice failed because the Tribunal found Mr Todd's conduct repudiated the contract and, in any event, he was paid beyond the notice period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,636
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £433
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £6,204
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.119 ERA 1996
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(1) ERA 1996
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited
- s.207A TULRCA 1992
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- Nelson v BBC (No. 2)
- ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary 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.