In person. For the v Respondent — 2024

Mr Braithwaite was a Controls Engineer who worked from home two days a week from February 2022 because of his daughter's serious eating disorder. The tribunal found there was poor management of the home-working arrangement, no written clarity about whether he could take the sole PG laptop home, and no proper discussion of the Hybrid Working Policy. It found he had regularly taken the laptop home with the respondent's knowledge and that this was part of an established working practice.

On 14 June 2022 a dispute arose over the laptop's return. The tribunal found that the respondent's stated welfare justification for an unannounced home visit lacked credibility, that the visit was in reality driven by concern about the claimant's use of the laptop, and that the managers' conduct at the home was provocative. It found that Luke Beckingham put his fingers through the claimant's letterbox and shouted through it, which the tribunal treated as a trespass on the claimant's property. The claimant then lost his temper and used offensive language in the heat of the moment, before handing over the laptop about fifteen minutes after the managers arrived.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the tribunal found the respondent did not genuinely believe the claimant had refused to attend the 15 June 2022 investigation meeting, and that the investigation was unfair because only that allegation had been put in writing at first. It found that the more serious allegations about the laptop and verbal aggression were only later introduced, that the investigator had not properly prepared, and that the disciplinary chair approached the matter with a pre-determination mindset. The tribunal also found that a new allegation about MSB Automation was raised for the first time at the disciplinary hearing. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996, the Burchell test, and the range of reasonable responses approach, it held that dismissal was outside the reasonable band of responses.

The tribunal rejected a Polkey reduction, finding a nil chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event had a fair process been followed. It also found that the claimant did not contribute to his dismissal, taking account of the emotional pressure of caring for his severely unwell daughter and the circumstances of the home visit.

The age discrimination claim succeeded only on one allegation. The tribunal found that Luke Beckingham said the respondent thought the claimant was getting too old to handle the demands of the new equipment, and no non-discriminatory explanation was provided for that remark. It rejected the other age allegations, including dismissal, treatment of his language as misconduct, the Italy trip, the sharing of his duties with Chris Simons, and the disciplinary action for not attending the first meeting. The tribunal accepted that the Italy trip and the later role-sharing were explained by business need, experience and the pressures of Line 53, not by age. The judgment records liability only and does not set out a monetary award.