Mr. S Lazarou v Retail Motor Industry Federation Limited — 2019

Mr Lazarou was employed from 1 March 2015 as a Technical Trainer/Assessor on a salary of £28,000. His contract required flexibility and stated that any extra remuneration for additional hours had to be agreed with his line manager. At the start of the hearing he withdrew the breach of contract elements relating to sick pay, bonus and salary increases, and the tribunal dismissed those elements on withdrawal. The remaining wages/overtime claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) after the tribunal found that the contract did not confer an entitlement to overtime without agreement and noted that the claimant had repeatedly accepted that he was not entitled to overtime.

The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was misconduct and not the fact that Mr Lazarou had raised grievances. Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell test, it accepted that Mr Harvey and the respondent genuinely believed Mr Lazarou had engaged in volatile behaviour, and that there were reasonable grounds for that belief based on the record of incidents with Ms Coward, office staff, Southam Academy, a customer complaint, the grievance meetings, and the call to Ms Farmer.

However, the tribunal held that the investigation was not reasonable and that the dismissal process was unfair. It found that serious allegations made by Ms Coward, including that Mr Lazarou posed a physical threat and had an issue with women, were not properly investigated, that Ms Coward was not formally interviewed, and that Mr Lazarou was never interviewed as part of an investigation. The tribunal also held that dismissing him for his conduct at the grievance feedback and grievance appeal meetings, and for the later reaction when told he could be suspended if he consulted a lawyer, was outside the range of reasonable responses in the circumstances.

Mr Lazarou also succeeded on wrongful dismissal because the tribunal did not find gross misconduct entitling the respondent to dismiss without notice. It held that his strong language and shouting in stressful circumstances, including the single incident involving Ms Farmer, did not reach that threshold. Remedy for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal was left to a further hearing, including possible deductions for contributory conduct and Polkey, so no award was fixed in this judgment.