GWQ v Ufp — 2022

The Claimant worked for the Respondent as General Manager of one of its family entertainment centres. In June 2021 he was arrested and released on bail, including a condition that he was not to knowingly have unsupervised contact directly or indirectly with any person under the age of 18 either physically or online. The Respondent suspended him on full pay, then invited him to formal meetings in October 2021 to consider whether he could continue in role given the bail conditions, the length of the police investigation, and the potential reputational impact on the business.

The Tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was the Respondent’s belief that the Claimant could not carry out his contractual role. It held that this was a genuine and substantial reason capable of amounting to some other substantial reason under section 98(1) ERA 1996. The Tribunal accepted that the Respondent reasonably interpreted the bail conditions as meaning the Claimant could not safely work in his senior on-site role, and that it was reasonable to take account of the risk that the business could not ensure compliance with the under-18s condition at all times.

The Tribunal also found that the Respondent had acted reasonably in all the circumstances under section 98(4) ERA 1996. It accepted that alternatives to dismissal were considered, including working from home, redeployment, special projects, and a job swap, but were lawfully and reasonably rejected because the Claimant could not perform his managerial role remotely and no suitable alternative roles were available. The Tribunal further accepted that the Respondent was entitled to treat the Claimant’s continued attendance on site while under investigation for allegations relating to indecent images of children as carrying reputational risk for a family-oriented business.

On procedure, the Tribunal held that any defects were minor and did not render the process unfair. The Claimant had two formal meetings and an appeal, was given the opportunity to respond, and the appeal was heard by a more senior manager who was not previously the decision-maker. The Tribunal therefore concluded that the Claimant was fairly dismissed and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It also held that there was no need to consider Polkey once fairness had been established.