Mr A. Anderson v Allvotec Ltd — 2020

Mr A. Anderson was dismissed by Allvotec Ltd after events on New Year’s Eve 2018. The tribunal found that he expected, but had not been promised, an early release from his shift; when told he would need to work until 7pm he became agitated, spoke loudly to the deputy team leader Luke Turnbull, and then left work early after saying he was unwell. The tribunal also accepted that in the kitchen area he handled a tray of cups roughly and made a remark to DB that, in context, created a hostile and intimidating atmosphere for a very short period. The disciplinary process led to summary dismissal for gross misconduct and the appeal was rejected.

The tribunal held that the Respondent had a genuine conduct reason for dismissal and that the investigation and hearing were, in general, reasonable. It accepted that the Claimant’s conduct towards Mr Turnbull, DB and CG, and his decision to leave work when he did not get what he expected, were capable of amounting to gross misconduct. However, the dismissal was still unfair because the decision-makers were influenced by an undisclosed email from Sharon Warren of ATOS saying that ATOS would not want the Claimant to work on any of its sites. That email was not disclosed to the Claimant, the Respondent did not approach Sharon Warren before deciding on sanction, and the Claimant was not given the chance to deal with that material point.

The tribunal found that the influence of Sharon Warren’s email affected both the dismissal decision and the appeal outcome. It concluded that a reasonable employer would have disclosed the email, allowed the Claimant to address it, and then taken steps to explore whether Sharon Warren would maintain her position before deciding on dismissal. On remedy, the tribunal assessed the chance of a fair dismissal at 75% under Polkey and reduced the compensatory award by that proportion. It also reduced both the basic and compensatory awards by 60% for contributory conduct, finding that the Claimant’s own blameworthy conduct significantly contributed to the dismissal. No evidence or submissions on mitigation were heard, so the amount of compensation was left for a later remedy hearing.