Ms Jacqueline Longstaff v Continental Contracting (CCL) Ltd — 2019

The tribunal found that Ms Jacqueline Longstaff was summarily dismissed on 1 February 2019 and did not resign at the meeting on 21 January 2019. It accepted her account of being put under pressure after allegations that she had taken money from the till, and it concluded that the later text exchange showed she had not resigned but was being told to choose between resignation and dismissal. The tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was conduct, namely alleged theft, but that the respondent had already formed a concluded view of her guilt before the meeting.

The tribunal rejected the respondent's reliance on Brulines records and till receipts as proof of theft. It found the investigation was not reasonable: receipts had not been retained or critically analysed, the apparent discrepancies were not properly explained, and no one had seen the claimant take money. It also found the 21 January meeting was not preceded by a fair process: there was no investigatory stage, no written allegations, no accompaniment, and no appeal. On that basis the dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses under s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,703.03 and a compensatory award of £2,334.72. In the remedy section it applied a 20% Polkey reduction to the loss-of-earnings element, then a 25% uplift under s.207A TULRCA 1992, and it recorded a prescribed element of £2,034.72 with the balance of £3,647.48 payable immediately. It also awarded £300 for loss of statutory rights within the compensatory figure.

The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded because the claimant was entitled to five weeks' notice and the respondent did not prove repudiatory misconduct. The holiday pay claim succeeded because she had accrued two untaken days by the termination date of 1 February 2019. The unlawful deduction from wages claim failed because she did not present herself for work after the 21 January meeting, and the respondent's counterclaim for breach of contract was dismissed because theft and loss were not proved.