Mr G Jeffery v Givaudan UK Limited — 2024

Mr Jeffery worked as a warehouse operative from 15 June 1992 until dismissal on 20 December 2019 and had a clean disciplinary record. The tribunal reviewed earlier 2018 and 2019 department complaints about swearing, bullying and poor working relationships, including a late-2018 investigation that found systemic inappropriate behaviour and a later collective complaint. That collective grievance found some frustration caused by the claimant but rejected most allegations of regular verbal bullying, except for the 26 June 2019 incident, and recommended management action and mediation.

The dismissal centred on a 26 June 2019 altercation about a product list. The respondent believed the claimant had called an older colleague "old cunt", but the tribunal found the investigation had material shortcomings: the claimant was not told the specific allegation at the investigatory meeting, his account was not put to the witnesses, inconsistencies in the accounts were not explored, the CCTV did not cover the incident, the swipe-card evidence was limited, and the dismissal and appeal decision-makers did not themselves interview the witnesses. The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that he first learned the precise allegation later and found, on balance, that he did not say the words alleged.

The tribunal held that, even if the words had been used, dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses in the circumstances. It held that the respondent gave insufficient weight to the claimant's 27-year service and clean record, treated the department's wider problems as aggravating the claimant unfairly, and relied on a disciplinary culture in which similar swearing and abusive conduct had generally not led to dismissal. It also held that no hypothetical fair procedure would have led to dismissal in any event, so no discount applied to compensation, and it found no unreasonable breach of the ACAS Code. On the wrongful dismissal claim, the tribunal found on balance that he did not use the alleged words and, alternatively, that the conduct would not in this workplace culture amount to gross misconduct. The judgment records liability only and no monetary remedy was assessed.