In Person v Respondent — 2021

The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was gross misconduct following events between the claimant's arrest on 30 June 2020 and the disciplinary hearing on 28 August 2020. It accepted the Respondent's evidence that the claimant had been arrested over an alleged sexual assault on the hotel premises, that the police had reported an apparent admission of a consensual encounter, and that the claimant later gave a different account in the disciplinary process. Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, the tribunal held that the Respondent had a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation.

The tribunal also found that the investigation and disciplinary process were procedurally fair. It accepted that the Respondent had suspended the claimant to investigate, had asked him twice for his account, had delayed until the criminal investigation had moved on, had offered accompaniment at the disciplinary hearing, and had informed him of his right of appeal. It held that the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses and therefore rejected the unfair dismissal claim.

On the wages issue, the tribunal treated the claim as one for breach of contract. It found that during the lockdown period there was an oral agreement that the claimant would receive an additional £2,000 per annum, or £166.67 per month, for the extra on-site arrangement. It accepted that the claimant was required to sleep on site and that, applying the Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake approach, he was only entitled to national minimum wage for time actually worked, namely when awake and attending a disturbance or emergency. On the evidence, the tribunal found he had been paid for the 132 additional hours it accepted were worked, including the sums shown on the payslips, the extra £300 he said he received, and the accommodation offset under the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015.

The claimant's tools complaint also failed. The tribunal recorded that he had not provided any list of tools, evidence of ownership, or evidence itemising the items allegedly retained by the Respondent, and it concluded that any claim he might have been entitled to bring in that jurisdiction had not been proved.