Mr L Mundell v The African Caribbean Care Group — 2023

The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct. It accepted that the respondent had raised a conflict of interest issue in October 2020 and again in July 2021 after the claimant and his son publicised a "Manchester Meals for the Elderly" project. The claimant was given a first and final written warning on 6 August 2021 and was told to desist from further involvement in the food delivery service.

The tribunal held that the respondent had a genuine belief, based on reasonable grounds, that the claimant continued to be involved after that warning. It relied on the delivery of the desistance letter to the claimant's home at 12.36pm on 7 August 2021, a tweet later that day referring to the claimant and his son delivering meals, and a further tweet on 22 August 2021 describing the project as completed. The claimant had not produced the Manchester City Council paperwork he said would explain the funding or the social media promotion.

Applying section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Burchell approach and the band of reasonable responses test, the tribunal held that the investigation, the respondent's belief and the grounds for that belief were sufficient, and that dismissal after the final warning was within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal also held that the disciplinary policy allowed a final written warning in serious misconduct cases. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.