Mr G Hearne v Summerlands Lodge (Phase 1) RTM Company Limited — 2022

Mr Hearne brought only a claim of unfair dismissal under s.94 and s.98 ERA 1996. The tribunal found that the employment relationship at Summerlands Lodge deteriorated sharply during the pandemic, after disputes about post delivery, lockdown compliance, changing duties, and the claimant's interactions with directors and residents. The tribunal admitted transcripts of covert recordings and found they showed that some directors and Mr Hutchinson were already discussing how the claimant might be managed out or leave, but it concluded that the legal reason for dismissal was conduct and the breakdown of the employment relationship, not an ulterior motive.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent could reasonably rely on the disciplinary material it gathered and that its investigation and disciplinary conclusions were within the range of reasonable responses. It found the disciplinary allegations proven on the evidence, including allegations about rude and aggressive behaviour and non-compliance with Covid-related instructions, and held that dismissal itself was within the band of reasonable responses given the seriousness of the matters, the claimant's stance, and the irretrievable breakdown in relations.

The claim succeeded because of procedural unfairness at appeal stage. The same cohort of directors who had been involved in the events and had taken the dismissal decision also dealt with the appeal, and that was inconsistent with the respondent's own disciplinary policy and the ACAS Code's expectation of an impartial appeal where possible. The tribunal held that this point of unfairness rendered the dismissal unfair overall, but it refused reinstatement or re-engagement because trust and confidence had irretrievably broken down and re-employment would be impracticable.

On remedy, the tribunal applied Polkey and found that even if the respondent had acted fairly, it would have dismissed the claimant in any event and at the same time, so the compensatory award was reduced by 100% to nil. It did not reduce the basic award for contributory conduct, describing the award as modest and concluding that it would not be just and equitable to make a reduction in the circumstances. The result was a basic award of £2,484.75 and no compensatory award.