Mr I Rafiq v Hutchinson 3G UK Limited — 2019

Mr I Rafiq was employed by Hutchinson 3G Limited as a store manager and was transferred to the Oldham store on 1 July 2018. After an anonymous report on 20 August 2018 alleging mismanagement and misconduct, he was suspended on 24 September 2018 and investigated for two matters that later formed the basis of dismissal: leaving the store early without permission on multiple occasions and encouraging customer "churn". The dismissing officer, Mr Gorner, upheld both allegations on 20 December 2018 and the appeal officer, Mr Millard, upheld the dismissal on 25 January 2019.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found the respondent held a genuine belief in misconduct and had carried out a reasonable investigation. It accepted that employee interviews and CCTV footage gave reasonable grounds to believe the claimant had left the store early on eight occasions between 27 August and 21 September 2018, without authorisation and without any documentary record showing accrued time off in lieu. The tribunal also accepted that there was sufficient evidence to conclude the claimant encouraged churn within his team.

However, the tribunal was not satisfied that the respondent had reasonable grounds to conclude the claimant had obtained financial benefit from churn or that any customer-detriment policy had been shown by written policy or documentary evidence. It found the dismissal would have been unfair if based on churn alone, but held that the unauthorised absence allegation by itself justified summary dismissal. The tribunal therefore concluded that the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses and that the claimant would have been dismissed in any event for unauthorised absence.

On the breach of contract / wrongful dismissal issue, the tribunal held that the repeated unauthorised absences were sufficiently serious to amount to a fundamental breach of contract. It rejected the claim that the respondent had breached the contract by failing to give notice pay, and therefore found the claimant was not wrongfully dismissed.