Miss C Crabb v Dr Ebenezer Timeyin t/a Thanet Road Surgery — 2019

Miss C Crabb worked as a receptionist/secretary at Thanet Road Surgery from January 2015 until her summary dismissal on 17 November 2017. The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed her for a composite reason: attendance concerns, including the absences on 6 and 7 November 2017, and the fact that she completed and initialled an insurance form. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the range of reasonable responses approach, it held that the dismissal was unfair because the respondent did not properly investigate the November absence, did not take account of the contractual provision allowing time off for a dependant, and had effectively decided the disciplinary outcome before hearing the claimant's explanation.

The tribunal accepted that dismissal based only on the insurance-form incident could have fallen within the band of reasonable responses, but it found that was not the sole reason for dismissal. It treated the decision as unfair because the respondent relied on the November absence as part of the reason for dismissal, even though the claimant had left with the practice manager's knowledge when her child was sent home from school and had communicated by text. It also found the appeal arrangement was unduly limited because it was framed as an appeal only on the basis of new evidence.

On compensation for unfair dismissal, the tribunal said there was at least a 75% chance that a fair dismissal would have occurred in any event, so any compensatory award would be reduced accordingly, and it also found contributory conduct justifying a further 50% reduction. Quantification was left to a remedy hearing. The tribunal also held that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract: the form-signing incident and attendance matters did not amount to gross misconduct or a serious breach of contract, so she was entitled to her one month's notice and damages were to be assessed.

The direct age discrimination claim was dismissed. The claimant relied on three matters as less favourable treatment: being disciplined over time off to collect her child, being dismissed partly because of the insurance form, and being given fixed-term rather than permanent contracts. The tribunal found that the respondent's reasons were concern about reliability and the form error, not age, and that the claimant had not shown less favourable treatment by a proper comparator or a hypothetical comparator. Because the claim failed on the merits, it did not need to determine the time-limit issue under section 123 Equality Act 2010.