Mr K Teasdale v Springhead Ales Limited — 2020

The tribunal found that there had been a relevant transfer between Springhead Fine Ales Limited and the respondent, so Mr Teasdale had continuity of employment from 27 March 2008 until his dismissal on 22 July 2019. The respondent’s reliance on insufficient service fell away once TUPE continuity was accepted.

On the dismissal itself, the tribunal held that the reason was conduct rather than redundancy or an attempt to avoid a grievance. It accepted Ms Saunders’s evidence, supported by contemporaneous documents, that she had lost trust in Mr Teasdale because of matters including brewery management, delay in obtaining the audit, timekeeping, leaving the premises unsecured, and alleged petty cash misuse. Because no procedure was followed when he was dismissed, the unfair dismissal claim succeeded.

Applying the Polkey approach under s.123(1) ERA 1996, the tribunal held that if a fair procedure had been followed there was a 60% chance that a fair dismissal would still have occurred, so any compensatory award would be reduced by 60%. A remedy hearing was listed to deal with the remaining unfair dismissal remedy and any further deductions for contributory conduct.

The respondent conceded the ancillary statutory claims for failure to provide written reasons for dismissal and failure to provide written particulars of employment, and the tribunal awarded £1,050 on each claim. The holiday pay arrears claim succeeded by consent in the sum of £144. The claim for travelling expenses failed because the tribunal accepted notice had been given that such expenses would no longer be paid and no evidence of actual expenditure was produced.