Mr S Mighall v Cammell Laird Shiprepairers and Shipbuilders Limited — 2019

The claimant, a GMB shop steward, was dismissed on 14 March 2018 after being found to have written repeated chalk graffiti about a colleague, RL, including offensive and sexually explicit language on company property. The tribunal accepted that RL initially complained of bullying and intimidation, that the complaint was later withdrawn after the claimant was identified, and that the employer nonetheless proceeded because it regarded the conduct as serious. The tribunal found the dismissing officer, Mr McLaughlin, acted diligently and conscientiously, and that his written rationale accurately reflected his reasons.

The tribunal held that the claimant was not dismissed for any reason related to trade union membership, office or activities, and was not dismissed for his part in the industrial dispute or strike action earlier in 2018. It found that the disciplinary and appeal process had no bearing from union activity, that the investigation and hearings were properly conducted, and that the claimant was represented throughout. The appeal officer, Mr Serjent, was also found to have taken a conscientious and diligent approach and to have dismissed the appeal for the reasons set out in the appeal outcome letter.

On the unfair dismissal claim under s.98 ERA 1996, the tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, that belief was based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and dismissal was a reasonable response. Applying the range of reasonable responses test, and referring to cases including Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt, Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones and Secretary of State for Justice v Lown, the tribunal concluded that a reasonable employer could dismiss for this conduct and that it could not substitute its own view of the appropriate sanction. No monetary remedy was awarded because all claims failed.