Ms M Rukudzo, Solicitor For the v Respondent — 2021

Ms Z Tanjong was employed as a finance officer by The Tabernacle Global Ministries from 1 November 2015 on a salary of £14,500. Her wages claim was based on an alleged agreement to pay extra for additional hours said to have arisen after the introduction of a new finance package, and on a separate invoice for use of her personal laptop. The tribunal found there was no contractual term or variation entitling her to extra remuneration, no reliable record showing what additional hours were worked, and no proof of how any claimed sum had been calculated. The unlawful deduction from wages claim therefore failed, and the tribunal said it was unnecessary to decide the limitation issue.

The dismissal was for gross misconduct and turned on two matters: the respondent's belief that the claimant had produced a version of her job description that omitted tasks she later refused to do, and her refusal to continue with pension administration. The tribunal accepted that misconduct was a potentially fair reason and referred to British Home Stores v Burchell, Sainsbury's Supermarkets v Hitt, Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones, and s.98(4) ERA 1996. It found that Ms Campbell's investigation was reasonable overall, including enquiries of Monica Knight and reliance on the claimant's homeworking paperwork, but criticised aspects of the process, including the fact that Ms Campbell both investigated and chaired the disciplinary hearing, and the reliance placed on document properties suggesting a 4 June 2019 creation date after the document had already been sent to Mr Clarke.

The tribunal held that those procedural defects meant the dismissal was unfair, but it did not award compensation. It found that the claimant had been insubordinate in refusing reasonable instructions to resume pension administration, in insisting on a narrow reading of her job description, and in recording the disciplinary hearing against instruction. The tribunal concluded that her conduct made her entirely responsible for her dismissal, reduced compensation by 100%, and said she was not entitled to be compensated. It also stated that, in the circumstances, she was not wrongfully dismissed because her overall conduct was repudiatory of the employment relationship.