Miss A Rainbird v Match Skin Salon Ltd — 2019

Miss Rainbird was employed as salon manager by Match Skin Salon Ltd from 1 May 2016 until her dismissal was communicated by email on 5 June 2018. The tribunal accepted that, after an absence for a fractured elbow, she met Ms Johal on 10 May 2018 and that the parties discussed her return, possible redundancy, and payments, but found that no final redundancy agreement was reached.

The tribunal found that the respondent then investigated allegations arising from client bookings, Dermapen treatments, missing needles, deleted diary entries, and cash payments said to have been taken but not recorded. It accepted that the respondent had a genuine belief that the claimant had been guilty of gross misconduct and that, on the material it had, the investigation was reasonable in the circumstances. The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that she had been made redundant.

The dismissal was nevertheless held to be unfair because the respondent did not follow a fair disciplinary process. The claimant was not given a proper written case to answer, no disciplinary hearing took place, and no appeal was offered. The tribunal referred to the ACAS Code of Practice, section 98(4) ERA 1996, and the Burchell test. It held that any compensatory award would be reduced by 60% for Polkey reasons, and it did not make a further contributory fault reduction.

On pay, the tribunal found an unexplained shortfall in April 2018 wages and held that May 2018 wages had been unlawfully deducted, including the period after 8 May 2018 when the claimant was fit to return on light duties but was not permitted to work. The tribunal did not quantify the wage claim or the unfair dismissal compensation in this judgment; those issues were left to a remedy hearing listed for the first available date after 3 September 2019.