In person (assisted by Mrs K Waterfield, his wife) For the v Respondent — 2025

The claimant brought one complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal after he was summarily dismissed on 29 September 2023. The respondent relied on misconduct, arising from allegations that the claimant had used threatening and violent language about an external health and safety consultant and a colleague. The claimant denied making the alleged threats and maintained that colleagues were setting him up.

The tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, based on reasonable grounds and a reasonable investigation. It accepted that the disciplinary and appeal decision makers were entitled to prefer the evidence of several colleagues over the claimant's denial, including after the appeal officer reviewed the witness evidence and the points raised by the claimant.

The tribunal concluded that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses, despite the claimant's almost 24 years of service and clean disciplinary record. It also found that any failure to provide all statements and interview transcripts before the disciplinary hearing was rectified on appeal, and that even if there had been procedural unfairness it would have made no difference to the outcome.