Mr David Erwin v Inglemere Metals (Blackpool) Limited — 2023

Mr David Erwin was employed by Inglemere Metals (Blackpool) Limited, and its predecessor, as a Breakers Yard Manager from 19 January 2004 until his dismissal on 5 February 2021. The tribunal accepted that the dismissal was for gross misconduct, not redundancy, and found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that redundancy was being considered at the time of dismissal.

The misconduct findings were that the claimant had disobeyed management instructions by allowing customer WB to take engines from the site without settling his outstanding account, by selling part worn tyres contrary to instruction, and by granting extended credit terms to customers without authority. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, that the belief was based on reasonable grounds, and that a reasonable investigation had been carried out having regard to the size and resources of the business.

The tribunal also rejected the claimant's challenges to procedure, including objections about the suspension, the disciplinary policy used, representation by his brother, and alleged bias. It held that Mr Jones had authority to suspend, that the claimant had received the relevant disciplinary extracts before the hearing, that the process was not unfairly affected by the use of the 2020 handbook, and that the decision to dismiss and the appeal outcome were taken without bias. Applying the band of reasonable responses approach, the tribunal found that summary dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses despite the claimant's long and unblemished service.

The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant committed gross misconduct and was therefore not entitled to notice pay. The unlawful deduction from wages claim also failed: the tribunal found that any annual bonus was within management discretion and linked to performance, and that withholding the December 2020 bonus was within that discretion in light of the claimant's attitude to the business changes.