Mr M Bah v Berendsen UK Limited — 2019

Mr M Bah was summarily dismissed on 13 November 2017 after allegations that he had acted aggressively and threatened or assaulted colleagues following a dispute about annual leave and an incident on 3 July 2017. He claimed unfair dismissal. The tribunal found that the dismissal was not motivated by the later allegations about corruption at the Brixton site, but by the respondent's concerns about his conduct on 3 July.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had behaved aggressively and had sought to assault CF. It applied the Burchell approach to misconduct dismissal, asking whether the employer had a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation. The tribunal criticised parts of the process, including the use of short witness statements, the failure of the investigator to interview witnesses directly at first, and several wrong-address and wrong-date errors in the disciplinary letters.

Despite those defects, the tribunal held that the claimant knew the case he had to meet, was later reinstated to the process, was given the documentary material, and was shown the CCTV at the disciplinary hearing. It found that the CCTV and the confirmation from CF provided a reasonable basis for the respondent's conclusions, and that showing the CCTV at the hearing rather than earlier was not unreasonable in the circumstances. The tribunal also referred to Shrestha v Genesis Housing Association and considered the process as a whole.

On sanction, the tribunal found that summary dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. It noted the claimant's long service and lack of previous warnings, but also that violent or aggressive behaviour could amount to gross misconduct under the respondent's disciplinary procedure. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed. No monetary award was made.