Benjamin Hill v Solomon Commercials Ltd — 2023

Benjamin Hill was employed by Solomon Commercials Ltd as a Commercial Bodywork Engineer from 23 April 2019 until his summary dismissal on 10 October 2022. The tribunal found that the dismissal arose from conduct: on 29 September 2022 Mr Hill removed a piece of GRP in a way that struck a colleague, JJ, who later attended hospital and was diagnosed with a fractured right orbital bone. The respondent treated the matter as gross misconduct, relying on its health and safety rules and the seriousness of the injury.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent genuinely believed Mr Hill had breached health and safety rules by failing to check whether others were close to him and by failing to give an adequate warning before removing the GRP. It found that the respondent had reasonable grounds for that belief and carried out a reasonable investigation, including interviewing the three men present at the incident and giving Mr Hill an opportunity to give his account. The tribunal rejected the complaint that the investigation was unfair because Mr Hill was asked to delete an audio recording or because the transcript was inaccurate, finding that he had a companion present and a fair opportunity to comment on the transcript before the disciplinary hearing.

The tribunal also found the disciplinary process itself to be fair. Although the hearing venue was moved within the same complex, the tribunal held that this did not affect fairness. It accepted that the respondent was entitled to refuse an audio recording for privacy reasons, and it found that the claimant's failure to participate in the meeting was due to his own refusal to engage. The tribunal noted that RM's comment that he should 'act like an adult' was intemperate, and that the dismissal letter wrongly stated that he had admitted his actions were not acceptable, but found that this factual error was immaterial to the outcome.

On sanction, the tribunal held that the respondent acted reasonably in characterising the conduct as gross misconduct and in deciding that summary dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. It accepted the respondent's evidence that there had been no comparable incidents during Mr Hill's employment, and it attached weight to the fact that he did not apologise and continued to maintain that JJ was entirely to blame. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.