Mr D Andersen v Rheon Labs Limited — 2022

Mr Doug Andersen was employed by Rheon Labs Limited as a Development Engineer from 2 October 2017 until his dismissal taking effect on 26 November 2021. The only claim before the tribunal was unfair dismissal. The tribunal identified conduct as the potentially fair reason relied on by the respondent under section 98(2)(b) ERA 1996, and rejected Mr Andersen's argument that the dismissal was driven by a desire to classify him as a 'bad leaver' under a share option scheme.

The tribunal accepted that Mr Andersen had been the subject of earlier performance and behaviour discussions in 2020 and early 2021, including a first written warning in January 2021 and a final written warning on 30 March 2021. It found those warnings were given in good faith and on prima facie grounds, and that Rheon had engaged an external coach and a performance improvement plan in an effort to address his conduct. The tribunal also accepted Mr Brown's evidence about the 5 March 2021 Zoom meeting, including that Mr Andersen had been drinking beer, responded in substance with 'deal with it', and behaved inappropriately during the call.

The dismissal arose after further concerns in September 2021 about Mr Andersen's conduct towards Mr Shafae Ali and Ms Leah Pattison in the context of his role as mentor/buddy to Mr Ali. The tribunal found that Mr Brown had a genuine belief, on reasonable grounds, that Mr Andersen had been guilty of inappropriate behaviour, and that the investigation was reasonable because Ms Coles interviewed Mr Ali and Ms Pattison and Mr Andersen was given the chance to respond at the disciplinary hearing. Mr Brown then checked Mr Andersen's emails after the hearing before deciding the outcome.

Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell principles, together with the authorities on prior warnings, the tribunal held that it was entitled to take account of the earlier warnings. It found that dismissal with notice was within the range of reasonable responses, even though the conduct involving Mr Ali and Ms Pattison would not, by itself, have justified dismissal. The tribunal accepted there had been some procedural imperfections, including the failure to tell Mr Andersen of his appeal rights against the warnings, but concluded that these did not make the overall process unfair. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.