Ms. L. Whittington (Counsel) For the v Mr. S. Ryan (Representative) — 2023

The claimant worked as a maintenance technician from 1 October 2018 until his dismissal on 18 November 2021. The respondent said the dismissal followed allegations from Mr David Hammett that the claimant had made comments on 29 October 2021 about the business and its managing director, Mr Nathan McAlindon. The tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant did not make the alleged comments and preferred his evidence over the respondent witnesses on the key events.

The tribunal held that the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair. It found that Mr Matthew Ballard's investigation was minimal, that the claimant was only asked one unexplained question, and that no further meaningful enquiries were made. It also found that Mr McAlindon was not neutral, had an earlier untested allegation in mind, and had decided the outcome before the disciplinary hearing took place. The appeal did not cure those defects: Mr Paul McAllister, Mr McAlindon's brother-in-law, did not properly engage with the appeal points, consider lesser sanctions, or take account of the claimant's length of service and disciplinary record.

The tribunal rejected any Polkey reduction and any reduction for contributory fault. It made a basic award of 1096.14, calculated by reference to three years' service, age 26 and a gross weekly pay of 365.38. It made a compensatory award of 6949.76, comprising 52 weeks' net pay, pension contributions and loss of statutory rights, less 10332 of earnings from self-employment after dismissal. It then applied a 20% ACAS uplift of 1389.52. The tribunal also upheld wrongful dismissal because the claimant was not guilty of gross misconduct, and it awarded 1461.52 under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars until after proceedings had started.