Mr A. Williams v The Westbury Hotel Limited — 2020

The claimant, Mr A. Williams, brought a single unfair dismissal claim arising from his dismissal by The Westbury Hotel Limited on 11 October 2019. The tribunal found that the respondent failed to establish that the dismissal was for a reason related to conduct. It concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the real reason was that management had either been directly instructed by Mr Cola to dismiss the claimant or had understood that Mr Cola wanted him dismissed and felt obliged to do so in order to regain his trust and avoid repercussions for themselves.

The tribunal placed weight on the surrounding management context, including evidence that significant staffing decisions were taken with Mr Cola's approval and that the management had not acted independently in this matter. It considered the investigation and disciplinary process to be superficial and flawed: there was no proper investigation report, important material such as the security report was not shared with the claimant, and the claimant's repeated case that he had previously been permitted to use the restaurant for private events was not properly investigated. The tribunal also found that the appeal did not cure those defects and that Mr Henning did not conduct a full rehearing.

Applying the approach in s.98 ERA 1996 and, in the alternative analysis, the Burchell principles and the range of reasonable responses test, the tribunal found that the respondent did not have reasonable grounds, a genuine belief, or a fair procedure. It held that the dismissal decision was outside the range of reasonable responses and that the process was predetermined. The tribunal further found that even if the dismissal had been for conduct, it would still have been unfair because the respondent failed to consider alternative sanctions and failed to take account of the claimant's long and exemplary service and clean disciplinary record.

On contributory conduct, the tribunal found that the claimant did contribute to his dismissal by culpable conduct. It held that he facilitated and allowed children to play in the restaurant in ways that went beyond the permission he had previously been given, and that this conduct was disrespectful and caused offence to the owners. The tribunal assessed contributory fault at 30%. Remedy, including compensation, mitigation, Polkey and any ACAS uplift, was expressly reserved for the later hearing and no monetary award was made in this judgment.