Lucy Sabia v KeolisAmey Docklands Ltd — 2021

The tribunal held that Lucy Sabia was unfairly dismissed by KeolisAmey Docklands Ltd. The respondent relied on misconduct arising from a meeting on 29 April 2019, where it said she raised her voice, slammed a book and poked a colleague. The tribunal found there had been a thorough investigation and that the dismissal decision-makers genuinely believed misconduct had occurred on reasonable grounds, so the Burchell test was met and the procedure was fair.

The tribunal nevertheless found the sanction of dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses under section 98(4) ERA 1996. It accepted that there had been a fraught working relationship between Ms Sabia and her manager, and that a grievance report in November 2019 had concluded both were responsible for the breakdown, with Ms Sabia probably more responsible. The tribunal considered that context relevant to sanction and found the decision-makers had treated the 29 April 2019 incident in isolation.

The tribunal held the incident itself was not gross misconduct. It noted that the alleged poking was not complained of at the time, emerged later in the investigation, and was an incident of limited seriousness rather than conduct justifying summary dismissal. It also found that the subsequent period was important: Ms Sabia and her colleagues had worked together without further issue for about 8 and a half months, and her manager had continued to work with her for several months and did not object to doing so.

On remedy, the tribunal said there should be no Polkey reduction because the procedure itself was fair, and no ACAS uplift because the ACAS Code was not breached. It assessed Ms Sabia’s contribution at 20% because she had over-reacted at the meeting and was partly responsible for the difficulties in the relationship. The tribunal said the primary remedy was reinstatement or re-engagement, found that there was no relationship reason preventing such an order, and directed Ms Sabia to notify the tribunal within 14 days whether she sought reinstatement or re-engagement. The compensation hearing was to follow; no award figure was fixed in this judgment.