Mr M Benson v Samworth Brothers Limited Trading as Samworth Brothers Supply Chain — 2022

Mr Benson was employed as a warehouse operative and was dismissed after a 14 December 2021 collision in which his powered pallet truck struck supervisor Mr Glyn Slater in the warehouse. The tribunal found, on the CCTV and the claimant's admissions, that Mr Benson reversed without looking behind him and failed to comply with the safe systems of work and general operating instructions requiring him to check the direction of travel and maintain vigilant observation.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent had a conduct reason for dismissal, but held that the dismissal was unfair under section 98 ERA 1996 because the disciplinary decision and appeal did not fairly grapple with Mr Slater's conduct. It found that Mr Henney did not give meaningful consideration to whether Mr Slater had also been negligent or vigilant, did not explain those findings to the claimant, and did not properly address the claimant's complaint that responsibility lay with both men. The tribunal also held that it was outside the range of reasonable responses to treat the claimant's stance as lacking remorse without first fairly considering whether his criticism of Mr Slater was legitimate.

The tribunal further held that Mr Maude's appeal reasoning was affected by an unreasonable view of the claimant's safety record, because he described earlier incidents in January 2019 and September 2021 as blemishes without giving the claimant a proper opportunity to address how they should be taken into account. It found no inconsistency of treatment on the comparator material relied on, and no Polkey reduction because, on the evidence, a fairer process would likely have led to a lesser sanction rather than dismissal. The tribunal said the claimant's own blameworthy conduct caused or contributed to the dismissal and indicated a 70% reduction for contributory fault, with remedy to be addressed separately.

The wrongful dismissal claim failed. The tribunal held that, viewed objectively, the claimant's conduct was negligent and amounted to gross misconduct, so the respondent was entitled to summarily terminate the contract without notice. It therefore dismissed the notice pay claim.