Ajit Pahal First v Secur-it Group Ltd Second Respondent: Secur- it Limited — 2019

The claimant, a security officer employed by the first respondent, was dismissed after an incident at Taylor Wimpey Fairfield on 4/5 March 2019. The tribunal accepted that the claim against Secur-It Ltd was withdrawn once the correct employer was identified as Secur-it Group Ltd. It found that the effective date of termination was 7 March 2019, when dismissal was communicated to the claimant by telephone and text, rather than 5 March 2019.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the claimant remained on site throughout the shift, completed his patrols, and responded to the check calls. It accepted that the respondent believed damage to vehicles on site must have occurred during the shift and that the claimant must have left the site, but it found there had not been a reasonable investigation before dismissal. In particular, there was no disciplinary or investigatory meeting with the claimant, no interviews with the contractors or other site witnesses, and the dismissal decision was taken by the managing director on the basis of information passed through Mr Wilkinson without speaking to the claimant.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996, the Burchell test and the band of reasonable responses approach, the tribunal concluded that the respondent did not have reasonable grounds for its belief in misconduct because it had not carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances. It also found that the claimant had requested an appeal and that no appeal hearing was arranged, which compounded the procedural unfairness. The unfair dismissal claim therefore succeeded, but compensation was not determined in this judgment and was to be dealt with at a later remedy hearing.

On the unlawful deduction from wages claim, the tribunal found that the claimant had worked the full 16-hour shift on 4/5 March 2019 and was entitled to be paid £125.28 gross at an hourly rate of £7.83. The respondent had no express contractual or other authorised basis for withholding the whole shift payment, and the tribunal held that the wages were properly payable. That claim therefore succeeded in the sum of £125.28 gross, subject to deductions for tax.