Case 2500825/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Tait v Pizza Express Restaurants Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2500825/2019
- Decision date
- 28 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson
- Venue
- North Shields Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Tait
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Tait worked as a waiter at the respondent's Gosforth restaurant from 1 January 2011 until his summary dismissal on 15 February 2019. The only live claim at hearing was unfair dismissal, because earlier complaints of disability and race discrimination had been withdrawn. The dismissal arose from an incident on 12 January 2019 when the claimant queried a rota after believing he had been granted a week's holiday from 14 January.
The tribunal found that the respondent's investigation was unreasonable. It accepted that the claimant had become frustrated and had raised his voice, but found no proper evidence that he had waved the rota in Laura Bell's face or that his voice was threatening or intimidating. It also found that the investigation strayed beyond fact-finding, used leading questions, and relied on an inaccurate reference to a non-existent "violence at work" policy. The tribunal considered that Miss McEntee had effectively moved from investigating the facts to advancing a case for gross misconduct.
The disciplinary process was also found to be flawed. Mr Gray did not properly frame the allegations, later added matters such as chair-slamming and intimidation, and recorded that "shouting is deemed as workplace violence", which the tribunal said was plainly wrong. On the tribunal's findings, there was no genuine and reasonable basis for concluding that the claimant had committed gross misconduct, and dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair under sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had contributed to his dismissal because he accepted that he raised his voice, was inappropriate, and may have made unnecessary noise in moving chairs. It reduced compensation by 35% for contributory conduct. After those findings, the parties agreed compensation of £9,000, comprising a basic award of £2,813.15 and a compensatory award of £6,186.85.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the dismissal unfair and, after finding 35% contributory conduct, the parties agreed compensation of £9,000 made up of a basic award of £2,813.15 and a compensatory award of £6,186.85. | Upheld | — | £9,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,000
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,813
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £6,187
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.94 and s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Weddell v Tepper
- Scottish Midland Co-operative Society Ltd v Cullion
- Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Brown v Thames Water Utilities Ltd
- Orr v Milton Keynes Council
- Strouthous v London Underground Limited
- s.122(2) and s.123(6) ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.