Mr W C J Evans v Mexichem UK Limited — 2023

The tribunal found that Mr Evans was dismissed on 24 November 2022 for gross misconduct, the stated reason being unauthorised absence. It held that conduct was a fair reason for dismissal under section 98 ERA 1996. The claimant had admitted that he left the site at 11.45am on 29 October 2022, did not seek authority from management before leaving, and later accepted in the hearing that he knew he should have remained at work until the end of the shift.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent carried out a reasonable investigation. Steven Hardcastle interviewed the claimant, the other members of the shift and relevant managers, reviewed the shift log, and considered CCTV and swipe-card evidence. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that there was a custom and practice of leaving early on Saturdays. It found that the alternative shift gave evidence that early departure required authority from Andrew Griffiths or Neil Platt and that there was sufficient work to cover the full shift.

The tribunal also accepted the respondent’s conclusion that the claimant had arrived late, because the swipe-card evidence showed a 7.55am start rather than 7.00am, and that the claimant did not correct his account until faced with the evidence at the disciplinary hearing. It held that the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe the claimant had been dishonest about his start time and had left early without authority, and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.

The tribunal rejected the comparison with Robert Hands. Robert Hands had faced only an unauthorised absence allegation, had mitigation, and was not accused of dishonesty. The appeal was also found to be fair: Michelle Harrison considered the claimant’s grounds, discussed the discrimination and inconsistency points, offered to pursue the CCTV issue further, and upheld dismissal on the basis that there was no evidence of custom and practice. The tribunal found no procedural defects and no basis for the unfair dismissal claim.