Mr J Medard v Rathfinny Wine Estate — 2022

Mr J Medard was employed by Rathfinny Wine Estate as Senior Winemaker and was dismissed after problems were discovered with the 2017 Classic Cuvee vintage. The tribunal found that the dismissal was not for misconduct but for capability: Mr Everett and Ms Driver believed Mr Medard had seriously mishandled the mixing and testing process, and that he did not properly accept responsibility for the errors. The tribunal also rejected the suggestion that the dismissal was driven by earlier conflicts or a desire to replace him with Mr Milanowski.

Applying section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Burchell approach, the tribunal held that Rathfinny had an honest belief in the allegations, reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a reasonable investigation. It was reasonable for the employer to rely on Mr Milanowski’s technical report, given the specialised winemaking issues involved, and Ms Driver was entitled to obtain a further view from Mr Rabagliati when Mr Medard challenged that report. The tribunal also found it was not necessary to delay the disciplinary decision until the full financial consequences of the failed vintage had crystallised.

On the question of fairness under section 98(4), the tribunal held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. It treated the matter as a series of serious shortcomings rather than a single mistake: failure to mix the wine properly before bottling, failure to test at bottling, and failure to carry out later testing. The tribunal attached weight to Mr Medard’s senior role, the scale of the cash-flow loss estimated at about £500,000, and the impact on the business beyond immediate financial loss, including reputation, marketing, and financing. The tribunal also rejected the argument that prior discussions about record keeping made dismissal unfair. The claim was dismissed in full.