Ms Houda Dakibou v IOC Limited — 2021

The claimant, a cleaning operative, was dismissed after a disciplinary process arising from an incident on 2 April 2020. The tribunal found the effective date of termination was probably 1 May 2020, when she received a payslip showing only holiday pay, and therefore held that the unfair dismissal claim was within time. It also recorded that no separate wrongful dismissal claim had been brought before it.

On the merits, the tribunal found that Mr Bradley, not Ms Hart, made the dismissal decision. It held that the principal reason for dismissal was that Mr Bradley was acting on his client’s instructions to remove the claimant from site, rather than an independent, reasonable belief formed after a fair investigation. The tribunal treated the claimant’s email of 2 April 2020 as a grievance that should have been addressed separately.

The tribunal further found that the disciplinary process was rushed and procedurally unfair. It said there had been no proper investigation with the claimant, that the allegations were unclear or overly broad, that potentially relied-on material including a video and a statement from Gloria Morales had not been provided to her, and that her request for a French interpreter was not met with a reasonable postponement. Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell guidance, it concluded that dismissal was unfair even if conduct had been the stated reason. Remedy was not decided at this hearing; the tribunal listed a remedy hearing to consider Polkey, contributory fault and any ACAS Code uplift.