Case 2408772/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Grisina v Torque Retail Services Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2408772/2020
- Decision date
- 7 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Grisina
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Grisina brought an unfair dismissal claim after being summarily dismissed by Torque Retail Services Limited on 1 May 2020. The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct, not redundancy. It rejected the claimant's case that the dismissal was really because the Trespass contract had been lost, finding no evidence that the Trespass team had been made redundant and accepting the respondent's evidence that staff were redeployed elsewhere in the business.
The tribunal found that the respondent carried out a reasonable investigation. It considered the respondent's disciplinary policy, the ACAS Code of Practice, the CCTV footage, and the sequence of investigation, disciplinary and appeal meetings. The claimant was suspended, invited to meetings, given documents including the policy, the note of the investigation meeting, the anonymous email and CCTV footage, and was given opportunities to answer the allegations. The tribunal accepted the respondent's reliance on the CCTV and the evidence from the different managers involved in the process.
On the merits, the tribunal accepted that the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe that the claimant had breached COVID social distancing guidance, had used or been present with a mobile phone on the factory floor contrary to the respondent's policy and the email sent on 26 February 2020, and had been complicit in conduct bringing the company into disrepute and misusing the company name. It found the dismissal to be within the range of reasonable responses, taking into account the claimant's role as a team leader and company ambassador and the respondent's loss of trust and confidence.
The tribunal also rejected the claimant's criticisms of the appeal process. It found that Steven Foster did not prejudge the appeal, took the claimant back through the CCTV footage, and gave her a further opportunity to respond before upholding the dismissal. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed in full, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 98 ERA 1996
- section 98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- range of reasonable responses
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures (2015)
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.