Dawid Durant Schabort v H.S. (Water Hygiene) Ltd — 2022

Mr Schabort was employed by H.S. (Water Hygiene) Ltd from 10 July 2019 after moving from HSL Group Limited, an associated employer. The tribunal found that the correct respondent was H.S. (Water Hygiene) Ltd. It recorded that the claimant had a clean disciplinary record before the events leading to dismissal.

The dismissal followed events at the Imperium building operated by Savills in February 2021. The tribunal found that the claimant had previously been warned about steam setting off the fire alarm, but on 12 February 2021 he ran the showers at full heat, left them unattended and left the changing area doors open, causing the alarm to activate. It also found that he overwrote and reused an existing water tank inspection log sheet, carried out the tank inspection carelessly, and that the respondent was entitled to conclude that his inspection was inadequate after the next day’s flooding. The tribunal further found that he initially denied carrying out the 6-monthly inspection, later accepted that he had done so, contacted a colleague during suspension contrary to instructions, and removed items from the office without permission.

On liability, the tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was misconduct and therefore potentially fair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct and that dismissal was a reasonable response in the circumstances, but the dismissal was still unfair because the respondent summarily dismissed him without a disciplinary hearing or appeal. The tribunal also concluded that the claimant’s conduct was culpable or blameworthy and reduced the basic and compensatory award by 75% for contributory fault. It stated that a 100% Polkey reduction applied to compensatory loss because the claimant would have been dismissed fairly in any event.

The judgment did not determine a final money award. It noted that a separate remedy hearing was listed for 8 September 2022, and the claimant had been directed to provide loss and mitigation documents before that hearing.