Mr J. Connolly v JD Wetherspoon — 2019

The Claimant was dismissed following disciplinary findings about unauthorised absences, failure to clock in and out, WhatsApp messages, and conduct after an investigation meeting. The Tribunal found the Respondent had a conduct reason for dismissal, believed in the misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a sufficient investigation into the alleged misconduct overall.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded only on procedural grounds. The Tribunal found the dismissal appeal was handled unreasonably because the Claimant had no notice that his dismissal appeal would be heard at the same meeting as his grievance appeal, the appeal officer had not read the appeal before the meeting began and only skim-read it during a break, the Claimant had no opportunity to arrange accompaniment, and he was not given a chance to comment on later appeal enquiries. The Tribunal found there was a 100% chance he would have been fairly dismissed after a fair appeal process, which would have taken two further weeks.

The victimisation claims were dismissed. Although the Tribunal found aspects of the grievance handling by Mr Duncan were unreasonable, including not securing CCTV and not analysing conflicting evidence with sufficient rigour, it found those failings arose from lack of skill or experience and were not materially influenced by the protected act. It also found the disciplinary charges, suspension authorisation and dismissal were not because of the protected act.

The wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed. The Tribunal found the unauthorised absences and abusive conduct on 12 October 2019 were sufficient to seriously damage trust and confidence and amounted to gross misconduct. For contribution, it found the Claimant's conduct was blameworthy and contributed to dismissal, but made no further compensatory reduction because of overlap with Polkey; it reduced the basic award by 50%.