In person For the v Ms C Hollins, Solicitor — 2019

The claimant worked as a personal trainer at the respondent's Ealing club from 1 October 2016 until his dismissal on 15 November 2018. The tribunal found that the respondent had repeatedly reminded PTs, including the claimant, about health and safety checks and food and beverage payment rules throughout 2018. It accepted that the claimant had received concerns about his conduct and performance before the disciplinary process began, including a meeting on 23 July 2018 and later written concerns about gym-floor conduct, safety checks, and food and beverage compliance.

On the incident findings, the tribunal held that the claimant did not carry out the spin-bike checks on 15 October 2018 even though he completed and filed the safety check form. It also found that on 17 October 2018 he was seen taking a pre-workout shot from the cafeteria without making payment, and that there was no later evidence of him returning to pay. After suspension on 22 October 2018, an investigation and disciplinary hearing followed, and Ms Hobrough dismissed him summarily for gross misconduct on 15 November 2018. On appeal, Mr Hanover considered the health and safety issue would not itself justify dismissal but concluded that the theft allegation was sufficiently serious to justify dismissal.

The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. Applying section 98 ERA 1996, the Burchell approach, and the band of reasonable responses, it held that the respondent genuinely believed the misconduct occurred, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and conducted an investigation that, despite minor shortcomings, remained within the range of reasonableness. It also found that the procedural defects identified, including not hand-delivering the 24 July 2018 letter and not providing the Marta note before the disciplinary hearing, were not material enough to make the dismissal unfair.

The direct race discrimination claim was also dismissed. The tribunal found no evidence from which it could infer that the claimant was treated less favourably because he was Black African, noting that he gave no named comparators and only raised race in general terms after dismissal. It rejected each of the pleaded allegations, including the CCTV review, the lack of interviews with other PTs, the handling of the grievance about the kitchen incident, the appeal process, and the delayed paternity pay, and concluded that the burden of proof did not shift to the respondent.