Mr C McGuinness v Sovini Property Services — 2021

The tribunal found that Mr McGuinness was dismissed with notice on 26 August 2020 for misconduct after two disciplinary processes. The first process in January 2020 ended in a stage 2 final written warning for allegations including working while off sick, and the warning remained live when the later health and safety issues arose. The second process followed a 16 June 2020 audit which found that his drill charger and mobile phone charger had not been PAT tested, that he was not using an RCD when required, and that his fire extinguisher had not been inspected within the required period. The tribunal also accepted that the respondent was concerned about comments attributed to the claimant about the company and his attitude on site.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that he had been targeted for audits or that there had been a personal vendetta against him. It found that the audits appeared randomised, that the respondent had no reason to wish to lose him, and that the suggestion of targeting was not made good. It also held that the earlier final written warning could properly be taken into account and did not need to be re-opened, because it had been issued in good faith, on reasonable grounds and was not manifestly inappropriate.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was cumulative misconduct, that misconduct was a potentially fair reason, and that the respondent had a genuine and reasonable belief in that misconduct after a reasonable investigation. It found that the disciplinary and appeal processes were procedurally fair, that the respondent had acted within the range of reasonable responses, and that dismissal was a fair sanction when the later misconduct was considered together with the live final written warning. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore not well-founded and was dismissed.