Mr R Price v Churchill Contract Services — 2021

Mr R Price brought a single complaint of unfair dismissal arising from his dismissal by Churchill Contract Services Ltd. The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was misconduct, not cost-cutting. It accepted that the claimant had used the company van for personal journeys, including trips to family, friends and cricket, and that there was no evidence the respondent had dismissed him because it could no longer afford to pay him or because his role had been cut.

The tribunal also found that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation. It relied on tracker records, the claimant’s admissions, and the signed driving policy. The tribunal noted that the claimant had been given several opportunities to explain his use of the van and the Westow Street contract hours, and that the respondent checked with relevant managers whether permission had been given for private use.

On procedure, the tribunal accepted that one point about the text messages to Ms Sloman may not have been put to the claimant during the disciplinary process, but held that this did not make the dismissal unfair. It found there were still sufficient grounds to conclude that the claimant had not been attending Westow Street as claimed, and that any further opportunity to comment would not have altered the outcome.

The tribunal held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses under section 98(4) ERA 1996. It relied on the claimant’s long and regular personal use of the van, his supervisory role, the reissued policy stating that personal use was prohibited, and the fact that there were two separate serious charges. Had dismissal been found unfair, the tribunal said it would have assessed the claimant’s contribution as high and agreed with the respondent’s figure of 75%.