Ms P Connelly v MYCITYDEAL Ltd — 2025

Ms Connelly worked for MYCITYDEAL Ltd as a Senior Merchant Development Consultant from 1 June 2010 until her dismissal without notice on 27 March 2024. The respondent said it dismissed her for conduct: making false calls to inflate her call-time KPI and making derogatory comments about the company. The claimant accepted that she had deliberately made some false calls and had made the derogatory comments, but said dismissal was too harsh given her long service, unblemished record and strong performance.

The tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine belief that she had committed gross misconduct and that belief was reasonable. It also found that the claimant understood the case against her before the disciplinary hearing and that the respondent reasonably rejected her explanation that Natterbox was malfunctioning. However, the tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair because the process was not reasonable overall. There was no separate investigation stage or investigator, the disciplinary chair also carried out further investigation, the invite letter used a vague allegation, and the claimant was not given an opportunity to respond before dismissal to the later Additional Calls that were relied upon in the outcome letter.

The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to invite the claimant to an appeal hearing, contrary to its own procedure and the ACAS Code. It accepted that the claimant's conduct was blameworthy and contributed to her dismissal, and it assessed Polkey at 80% because dismissal remained highly likely even if a fair process had been followed, although a final written warning was still possible. The tribunal applied a 10% ACAS uplift and reduced both awards by 80% for contributory conduct. The basic award was calculated from £12,538.50 to £2,507.70, the compensatory award from £25,573 to £1,227.50, and the total award was £3,735.20.

The breach of contract complaint was dismissed. The tribunal held that the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct, so the respondent was entitled to terminate the contract without notice.