Mr Greenlaugh, CAB representative v CPJ Field & Co Ltd — 2022

Mr Chivers was dismissed by CPJ Field & Co Ltd on 5 August 2020 after an altercation at work on 19 June 2020. The employer investigated statements from those present and concluded that he had used threatening and offensive language towards Mr Connolly and had pressed his forehead against Mr Connolly's forehead and pushed his head back. The claimant accepted that misconduct was the reason for dismissal, and the tribunal approached the case under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, including the Burchell guidance and the range of reasonable responses test.

The tribunal found that the respondent had reasonable grounds for believing that the claimant was guilty of misconduct. It accepted that the employer was faced with two different accounts, but was entitled to prefer the accounts of Mr Connolly, Mr Wheeler and Ms Norman over the claimant's version. On the first allegation, the tribunal held that the wording 'threatening and offensive language' was an objective question and that, in the context of the claimant approaching Mr Connolly, shouting, and making physical contact, it was reasonable to view the language as threatening.

On the second allegation, the tribunal rejected the argument that the evidence was undermined because Mr Connolly described the claimant moving his head back for a headbutt rather than saying that the claimant pushed his head back. It found that the claimant's own account did not undermine the core allegation that he pressed his forehead against Mr Connolly's, and that both Mr Wheeler and Ms Norman supported that version. The tribunal also rejected the allegation of fabrication or collusion, finding no basis to conclude that the witnesses had invented their accounts.

The tribunal held that the investigation was reasonable and that the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. It noted that the employer had taken statements from all those present, explored the claimant's challenge to the differing accounts at the disciplinary and appeal stages, and was entitled to conclude that the claimant had been the aggressor. As the unfair dismissal claim failed, the tribunal did not need to decide Polkey-style questions or contributory fault, and the remedy hearing listed for 5 December 2022 was vacated.