Mr Tuffnell (Trade Union Representative) For the v Respondent — 2019

The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason, namely third-party pressure from CBRE's site manager, who said she did not want the Claimant on site any longer. It accepted that the Claimant's behaviour at the 31 December 2018 audit and the cleaning standards on her floor had caused concern, but concluded the dismissal itself was driven by the client's ultimatum rather than by conduct or performance as such.

Although the respondent had sought to retain the client relationship and checked for redeployment options, the tribunal held that the dismissal process was unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. The Claimant was invited to a dismissal meeting only two days after receiving the letter and before she had returned from annual leave, she wanted union representation, and the respondent did not postpone the meeting or offer workable alternatives. The tribunal also found that the appeal process did not cure those defects, because unnecessary obstacles were placed in the way of an appeal hearing.

The tribunal rejected the unfair dismissal claim's procedural fairness defence but held that the ACAS Code did not apply because the disciplinary procedure had never been invoked. It also held that the meeting on 14 January 2019 was not a disciplinary hearing for the purposes of s.10 and s.13(4) ERelA, so the separate right-to-be-accompanied claim failed.

On remedy, the tribunal found that even with a fairer process the Claimant would still have been dismissed, but would have remained employed for a further two weeks while the matter was properly completed. It assessed contributory fault at 30% because the Claimant's conduct during the 31 December 2018 audit contributed to the client's intransigence. The award comprised a basic award of £3,048.00 and a compensatory amount of £1,099.84 before the 30% reduction, producing a total award of £2,903.49. No award was made for loss of statutory rights, and no ACAS uplift was applied.