Mr W Bradley v Mr J O’Brien t/a O’Brien Mobility — 2020

The tribunal heard the case on 20 March 2020 before Employment Judge Morris sitting alone. The claimant, Mr W Bradley, brought an unfair dismissal complaint against Mr J O’Brien t/a O’Brien Mobility. The tribunal found that the events on 3 September 2019 did not amount to an unambiguous dismissal or resignation: the claimant raised concerns about the van tyres, a heated exchange followed, but the tribunal did not find that he was dismissed that day.

The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed when he attended the respondent’s premises on the morning of 4 September 2019. It placed weight on the respondent’s letter of 12 September 2019, which stated that the claimant’s contract had been terminated with immediate effect, as well as the police incident report and, to a limited extent, the Google Maps printout. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the reason for dismissal was conduct within section 98(2)(b) ERA 1996.

The tribunal held, however, that the dismissal was unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996 because the respondent did not carry out a reasonable investigation, did not have reasonable grounds to sustain the belief that the claimant was guilty of misconduct, and did not follow a fair procedure. The tribunal applied the Burchell/Graham approach and noted that matters such as the actual condition of the tyres could have been investigated and the claimant could have been invited to give his account, but this was not done. Remedy was not determined at this hearing; the case was listed for a later remedy hearing. The duplicate claim, number 2504249/2019, was withdrawn and dismissed.