Case 3201123/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms T Worth v Twenty-Four Seven Recruitment Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201123/2024
- Decision date
- 28 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge W Brady Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms T Worth
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, a Regional Manager with approximately 17-18 years' experience with the Respondent recruitment agency, was dismissed for gross misconduct on 22 December 2023 following an incident on 26 October 2023 in which she was alleged to have sworn at a client (Poundland) representative. The Respondent's investigation relied on a second-hand account from Mr Sullivan rather than the more contemporaneous account of Mr Marples, who was present in the open-plan office and made no reference in his initial account to swearing, banging or shouting. The Claimant was not asked for her account before the disciplinary hearing, and the disciplinary chair (Mr Roessler) accepted in cross-examination that he did not consider it necessary because he regarded the allegations as strong enough.
The Tribunal held that the investigation, and in particular the failure to properly consider the Claimant's account before deciding to dismiss, fell outside the band of reasonable responses, and that the appeal process sought to justify the decision already made rather than reconsider it afresh. Alternatives to summary dismissal, such as a final written warning and a move to another area, did not appear to have been genuinely considered despite the Claimant's long service. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore well founded. On the wrongful dismissal claim, the Tribunal accepted the Claimant's consistent account, found Mr Sullivan's account inconsistent and elaborate, and held that her conduct, while a procedural lapse, did not amount to gross misconduct repudiating the contract.
On remedy, the Tribunal applied a 15% reduction to the basic award for contributory conduct (the Claimant accepted she had not followed the proper procedure by speaking to the client directly), a 15% Polkey reduction to the compensatory element, and a 15% ACAS uplift for failure to follow the ACAS procedures. Loss of earnings was limited to 26 weeks reflecting the Claimant's swift re-employment and limited evidence of further job-seeking. The total award was £12,321.73.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found the investigation and the failure to properly consider the Claimant's account before dismissal fell outside the band of reasonable responses; failings were not rectified on appeal. Basic award reduced by 15% for contributory conduct; compensatory award reduced by 15% (Polkey) and increased by 15% ACAS uplift. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Tribunal accepted the Claimant's consistent account, found Mr Sullivan's account inconsistent and elaborate, and concluded the conduct did not amount to gross misconduct. The judgment does not break down which portion of the £12,321.73 relates specifically to the wrongful dismissal (notice) claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,322
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,729
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £6,183
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones 1982 IRLR 439
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited v Hitt 2003 IRLR 23
- London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small 2009 IRLR 563
- Polkey deduction
- ACAS uplift
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.