D Heward v UHV Design Limited — 2023

D Heward brought a single claim of unfair dismissal arising from an altercation with Louise Durrell on 20 December 2022. He had worked for UHV Design Limited as Machine Room Manager from 23 September 2014 until his dismissal on 24 January 2023. The tribunal recorded that the parties agreed Ms Durrell behaved aggressively and used foul language, and that the claimant later raised his voice and swore after she left the room. The main factual dispute was whether he physically blocked her from leaving the cleaning room.

The tribunal found that the claimant did physically inhibit Ms Durrell’s exit by moving into her path as she tried to leave around the cleaning tanks, and it relied on the evidence of Ms Durrell and three other people present, the claimant’s contemporaneous comments in the disciplinary hearing, and the dismissal correspondence. It accepted that one allegation, that he pushed Ms Durrell back into the room, was withdrawn because the statements did not support it. It also accepted that the claimant had apologised and shown regret, and that his diabetes, length of service and the provocation he faced were mitigating factors.

Applying the Burchell approach and section 98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the Respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances. It considered the investigation as a whole, including the initial inquiry, the later witness interviews, the documents provided before the disciplinary hearing, and the discussion at the hearing itself. It rejected complaints that the process was too hasty, that there had to be a separate investigatory report, or that the claimant had been denied a fair opportunity to answer the case.

On sanction, the tribunal held that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. It accepted that the claimant was the manager in the incident, that he used threatening behaviour and physically blocked Ms Durrell’s exit, and that the Respondent was entitled to conclude the working relationship could not readily be repaired. It rejected the argument based on disparity of treatment, holding that Ms Durrell’s position was not sufficiently comparable because she was subordinate and had not engaged in the same conduct. The claim was therefore dismissed.