Mr A Sirin v Pizza Express Restaurants Limited — 2019

The Claimant, Mr A Sirin, was employed by Pizza Express Restaurants Limited as a Pizzaiolo at its Uckfield restaurant from 10 April 2010. He brought claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and other payments, but confirmed during the hearing that he was not pursuing the claim for other payments. The Tribunal therefore determined unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal only.

The unfair dismissal claim arose from a disciplinary process concerning alleged misconduct, including aggressive and unprofessional behaviour towards colleagues, insubordination, refusal to follow management instructions, and later concerns about food safety and allergen processes identified in a February 2018 audit. The Tribunal found that the Respondent genuinely believed the Claimant had engaged in the conduct alleged, that there were reasonable grounds for that belief, and that the investigation and disciplinary process were objectively reasonable. It noted that the original investigation was redone by an independent manager, that the Claimant was given the allegations and relevant documents, the chance to be accompanied, rearranged hearings when necessary, and an appeal process.

The Tribunal also found it reasonable for the Respondent to take account of the later audit findings and to treat the disciplinary process as including the earlier meetings. It accepted that Mr Coxhead could deal with the appeal on the material available when the Claimant sent his further representations to the wrong address and did not resend them. Applying the Burchell approach and section 98(4) ERA 1996, the Tribunal held that summary dismissal for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses, and the unfair dismissal claim was unsuccessful.

On wrongful dismissal, the Tribunal applied the contractual test of whether the Claimant had committed a repudiatory breach entitling the Respondent to dismiss without notice. Relying on the contemporaneous staff accounts and the audit material, it reached the same overall conclusion as the disciplinary decision-maker and found no material evidence of collusion or any agenda against the Claimant. It held that the Claimant did commit a repudiatory breach of contract, so the wrongful dismissal claim also failed. No monetary award was made.