Mr. Conor McKnight v Chelsea Football Club Ltd. Hearing: Final Merits Hearing — 2024

Mr McKnight worked for Chelsea Football Club Ltd as a groundsman from June 2019 until his summary dismissal on 30 May 2022. The dispute arose from a grievance he raised in October 2021 about an incident at a December 2019 social event involving his line manager, Jason Griffin, and from the club's later handling of anonymous emails sent in May 2022 making similar allegations. The claimant appealed his grievance outcome and then appealed his dismissal; the dismissal appeal was decided on the papers on 5 August 2022.

The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct, namely the claimant's 17 February 2022 email and the respondent's belief that he had sent, or instructed someone else to send, the anonymous emails. It held that the dismissal was unfair because Chelsea Football Club did not carry out a proper pre-dismissal investigation, did not tell the claimant the factual allegations or that dismissal was being considered, did not provide the evidence relied on, and did not give him an opportunity to make representations or be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing. The paper-only appeal also meant he had no appeal hearing or right to accompaniment. The tribunal applied section 98(4) ERA 1996, the British Home Stores v Birchell test, Sainsbury's Supermarkets v Hitt, and the ACAS Code of Practice, and concluded the dismissal fell outside the band of reasonable responses.

On remedy, the tribunal held under the Polkey principle that it was certain the claimant would have been fairly dismissed even if a fair procedure had been followed. It accepted that, by the appeal stage, the respondent had a reasonable investigation and that the decision-makers genuinely believed the claimant was responsible for the anonymous emails. The tribunal relied on the repeated similarity between the anonymous emails and the claimant's own grievance correspondence, the claimant's stated dissatisfaction with the grievance outcome, his threats to publicise the matter outside the club, the Blockphish report indicating technical capability, and the absence of any other serious candidate as the sender. Because it found the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event, it made no basic or compensatory award.