Mr N O’HaremR v Q D Services Limited — 2020

The tribunal found that the claimant was employed as an apprentice electrician under an approved English apprenticeship within the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, not a common law apprenticeship. It rejected the argument that the agreement failed because paperwork was not in place before the apprenticeship started or because he was not given a copy before commencement. On the pension issue, the respondent accepted there was a contractual shortfall in employer pension contributions, and the tribunal found the full amount had not been paid without good reason.

The tribunal accepted that there had been a pattern of complaints from customers and senior engineers about the claimant's attitude, swearing, phone use, lateness, and failure to follow instructions across 2018 and 2019. It found that Mr Colford had a genuine belief that the claimant had committed misconduct and that there were reasonable grounds for that belief. However, it held the dismissal on 12 July 2019 was unfair because the respondent treated a fresh complaint from 11 July as an immediate dismissal without a further formal disciplinary hearing or warning, so the procedure fell outside the band of reasonable responses and did not comply with the ACAS Code or the respondent's own disciplinary procedure.

The tribunal rejected the right-to-be-accompanied claim because the 12 July conversation was an informal discussion and not a disciplinary hearing for the purposes of s.10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. It also rejected the notice and fixed-term damages claims, holding that the claimant's conduct amounted to a fundamental breach that justified summary dismissal. On remedy-related issues, the tribunal said that a fair process would likely have led to a final written warning, followed by monitored improvement and then a fair dismissal with notice if conduct did not improve, but it found 80% contributory fault and indicated a 25% uplift for ACAS non-compliance; it listed the matter for a remedy hearing and did not quantify any monetary award in this judgment. The holiday pay and itemised pay statement claims were withdrawn and dismissed.