Mrs J Marshall v GR and MM Blackledge plc — 2019

Mrs J Marshall, a long-serving Area Manager, was dismissed with effect from 1 May 2018 after the respondent received a series of grievances while she was off sick. The tribunal accepted that the respondent relied on conduct as the reason for dismissal, but found that the grievances were largely anonymous, undated, and lacking in detail, and that most appeared to come from or be connected with one store, the Leicester store. It found that the respondent accepted the complaints at face value and did not make proper enquiries to identify and interview the complainants or test for collusion, despite the claimant pointing out who she believed the authors were and that many matters were historic.

The tribunal also found that the process was not a genuine investigation. It held that Ms Blackledge had effectively decided to refer the matter to discipline before meeting the claimant, and that Ms Sorrell approached the disciplinary hearing expecting dismissal. The tribunal concluded that the respondent did not genuinely believe the claimant had committed the misconduct alleged and did not have reasonable grounds for such a belief. Applying section 98 and the Burchell approach, it held that dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses.

The appeal did not cure the defects because Mr McFarlane made only limited further enquiries and did not speak to the witnesses identified by the claimant. The tribunal rejected contributory fault and any reduction in compensation on that basis. It also held that the claimant was not guilty of gross misconduct, so the wrongful dismissal claim for notice pay succeeded. The case was listed to proceed to a remedy hearing, so no final monetary award was determined in this judgment.