in person (supported by her uncle Mr K Mckeon) For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant was employed from 29 September 2017 and the tribunal accepted that the respondent relied on conduct as the reason for dismissal. The judgment records earlier workplace issues in June and October 2019, including warnings for bullying-related conduct, and a further dispute in January 2020 that led the respondent to treat the matter as gross misconduct and the “final straw”. The tribunal found the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe misconduct had occurred and had carried out a reasonable investigation for a small employer with limited internal HR resources.

The tribunal also addressed the dismissal procedure in detail. It found that the claimant was told on 10 January 2020 that a disciplinary hearing would follow, that she received the letter sent that day, that she knew or could have known about the 20 January hearing, and that she chose not to attend. It held that the respondent’s procedure, including the warning letter, the right to be accompanied, the hearing and the appeal right, was broadly consistent with the ACAS Code and that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses under section 98(4) ERA 1996. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore dismissed.

Although the dismissal claim failed, the tribunal held that the respondent had wrongly stated 10 January 2020 as the date of dismissal. Applying section 97(1)(b) ERA 1996, it found that the effective date of termination was 23 January 2020, when the dismissal letter would have been received in the ordinary course of post. The tribunal therefore directed the parties to confirm whether the respondent had paid the shortfall in normal pay and unpaid annual leave that accrued between 10 January 2020 and 23 January 2020, and said it would decide whether any further remedy hearing was needed to quantify that shortfall.