Mr C Hagan v Sky Retail Stores Limited — 2022

The tribunal found that Mr C Hagan was unfairly dismissed by Sky Retail Stores Limited. The respondent relied on misconduct, namely an admitted breach of its data protection and "How We Work" policies when the claimant used his personal mobile phone on 2 October 2019 to pass a prospective customer’s name and contact number to a colleague. The tribunal accepted that misconduct was a potentially fair reason for dismissal and found that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed that misconduct.

The tribunal also found that the respondent had reasonable grounds for that belief. The claimant accepted that he sent the customer’s details using his personal phone and knew the respondent’s rules required customer details to be handled only through approved systems and collateral. The tribunal accepted that, even if the customer had consented, that would not alter the fact of a breach of the respondent’s policies. It also found that any error in the dismissal letter referring to lack of consent was corrected on appeal.

However, the tribunal concluded that the investigation and procedure were not reasonable overall. Although the respondent carried out extensive enquiries, it did not take reasonable steps to explore sufficiently the difficulties in the working relationship between the claimant and colleague RD, whose allegations helped trigger the second investigation. The tribunal also found the investigation was excessively delayed, including unexplained gaps during the five-month investigation and, most significantly, a period from the abandoned disciplinary meeting on 4 June 2020 until 5 November 2020 where there was no evidence of progress or attempts to contact the claimant about the disciplinary process. That delay was found to be objectively unreasonable and outside the range of reasonable responses.

For those reasons, the unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The judgment did not determine compensation at this hearing. Remedy, including re-engagement, any Polkey reduction, contributory conduct, and any adjustment under section 207A(2) of the 1992 Act and the ACAS Code, was reserved to a further hearing.