Mr D Shemeld v Schűtz (UK) Limited — 2020

Mr D Shemeld was employed by Schűtz (UK) Limited from 2011 and was dismissed on 14 May 2020. The tribunal identified the issue as whether the dismissal for gross misconduct was fair under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant had previously withdrawn claims of whistleblowing and discrimination, so the only claim decided was unfair dismissal.

Employment Judge Flint found that the real reason for dismissal was gross misconduct and that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had brought weapons to work premises. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had reasonable grounds for that belief after considering witness accounts, the claimant’s responses, and the evidence of Mr White and Mr Jordan about the credibility of the witnesses and the inconsistencies in the claimant’s case.

The tribunal also found that the respondent carried out a reasonable investigation and a fair disciplinary process in accordance with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. Statements were taken promptly, CCTV was reviewed but was inconclusive, and the claimant had opportunities to respond at meetings on 21 April, 1 May, 7 May and 14 May 2020, with an appeal hearing on 18 June 2020. The tribunal noted that the claimant’s dyslexia was taken into account and that he was not unfairly treated in relation to it, and it accepted that he was given a reasonable opportunity to be accompanied.

On remedy and fairness, the tribunal held that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses because of the seriousness of the misconduct found. It accepted that, if the claimant had brought a knuckleduster and cosh to work, summary dismissal was justified given the health and safety risk and the inference that he had possessed the weapons in a public place. The claim for unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed.