Mr P Dixon v N Sign Trading Limited Heard: Remotely (by video link) — 2021

Mr Dixon worked for N Sign Trading Limited as a sign fitter and joiner from 28 February 2014 until 10 July 2020. The tribunal found that he made a protected disclosure on 13 June 2020 when he messaged Alun Pearson that the respondent was breaking CJRS rules by having people work while furloughed. It held that the message disclosed information, was made with a reasonable belief that it was in the public interest, and tended to show a failure to comply with a legal obligation under the CJRS.

The tribunal accepted that Mr Dixon was dismissed, but found that the principal reason for dismissal was conduct, not the protected disclosure. It rejected his account that he had permission to use the company van for the April 2020 trip to his brother's house, and found that the unauthorised use of the vehicle was the main reason for dismissal, with the disclosure and the breakdown in trust and confidence as subsidiary matters. The separate automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 therefore failed.

Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996, and referring to Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt on the adequacy of the disciplinary process, the tribunal found that the investigation, disciplinary hearing and appeal were inadequate and outside the range of reasonable responses. It found no chance that a fair procedure would have led to a fair dismissal, so there was no Polkey reduction. The unfair dismissal claim succeeded, but the tribunal also found 80% contributory conduct and said it would be just and equitable to reduce both the compensatory and basic awards by 80%; remedy was left to a later hearing. The breach of contract claim for notice pay failed because the tribunal found the claimant had committed serious misconduct that entitled the respondent to dismiss without notice.