Mr A Stevens v KGAL Consulting Engineers Limited — 2020

The claimant, Mr A Stevens, worked for KGAL Consulting Engineers Limited as a Business Development Manager from 1 September 2015 until his dismissal on 12 August 2019. The tribunal found that the dismissal was for conduct, based on a cumulative case including the claimant sending personal emails and the company client list to his personal email account, deleting sent items, inaccurate timesheet entries for 7 May 2019, misuse of company resources, and lesser allegations about events and travel. It accepted that Mr Doyle was the decision-maker, but found that the respondent had already formed a view that the claimant was guilty before the disciplinary hearing on 8 August 2019.

Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996, the Burchell test and the ACAS Code of Practice, the tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair because the claimant was not given an even-handed opportunity to answer the allegations before the decision was made and because the process was pre-determined. It nevertheless found that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses for the cumulative matters found, and it held that, if a fair process had been followed, this employer would still have dismissed the claimant, so a Polkey reduction of 100% applied.

The tribunal also found contributory conduct under sections 122(2) and 123(6) ERA 1996 and reduced both the basic and compensatory awards by 100%. It accepted that the claimant's conduct before dismissal was culpable, including the forwarding of the client list to his personal email, deleting sent items, using company email for personal matters, making inaccurate time records, and claiming expenses that were not due.

The breach of contract claim failed because the tribunal found that sending the full client list to a personal email account and deleting sent items was a fundamental breach of contract, so the claimant was not entitled to notice. The unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded only for 14 June to 12 August 2019, when the claimant was suspended on full pay; the tribunal rejected the earlier period from 1 to 13 June 2019 because company sick pay was discretionary and the notification requirements had not been complied with. No final monetary figure was fixed in this judgment, and the parties were directed to try to agree the wages sum or return for a remedy hearing if necessary.