Mr. R Aspinall v Mr. R Taylor T/A Lemanis Enterprises — 2022

The claimant, Mr R Aspinall, had been employed since November 2008 at Lympne Castle and was being paid £66,000 per annum at the time of dismissal. The tribunal rejected his account that Mr Taylor was running the business day to day and found that Mr Aspinall was the de facto general manager on site, with responsibility for HR, financial management, cash reconciliation, compliance, security and general administration. It also found that the scope of the role was reasonable for one experienced manager and that, although no formal training had been provided, he was expected to identify and organise his own training needs.

By 2018 and 2019 Mr Taylor had become concerned about the performance of the business and about repeated till reconciliation discrepancies, including amounts of £191 on 1 June, £192 on 2 June and £83 on 21 June 2019. Staff complaints about the claimant’s management also led to a grievance by Ms Langley. The tribunal accepted that the first independent HR consultant carried out a thorough, fair and unbiased investigation and that the claimant’s complaint that the process was one-sided was not made out. It also found that Mr Taylor’s 19 August 2019 email went too far, but that he then stopped the process and handed the matter over to Mr Bishop, who was found to be independent.

Mr Bishop reviewed the earlier investigation, met the claimant, carried out further interviews and visited the site. He did not uphold the allegation of misappropriation of bar takings, but he did conclude that there had been gross negligence in management, bullying and harassment, failure to keep proper statutory records, and a breakdown of trust and confidence. Mr Taylor accepted Mr Bishop’s recommendation and dismissed the claimant, and the tribunal held that the dismissal decision was Mr Bishop’s, not Mr Taylor’s, for the purposes of fairness. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the band of reasonable responses approach, the tribunal held that the dismissal was fair and the unfair dismissal claim failed. The holiday pay claim was withdrawn, and the tribunal held that no award could be made for the written particulars issue under s.38 Employment Act 2002.