Mr J Neckles (representative) For the v Respondent — 2021

The formal judgment recorded unfair dismissal as well founded by majority and the companion/detriment complaint as well founded unanimously. Mr Aslam was summarily dismissed on 10 September 2021 after CCTV and his own admissions showed that, during a tail-lift delivery on 27 May 2021, he was outside the designated safe area and not wearing a high-vis vest. The tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was misconduct and that Mark Davies had a reasonable belief based on a reasonable investigation.

By majority, the tribunal held that dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses. It accepted that workplace health and safety was important, but found that the claimant did not control whether a colleague entered the yard, that he was visible to the lorry driver, that he could not have been walking under the moving tail lift as recorded in the decision summary, and that the respondent had not given sufficient weight to his length of service, clean record, and the fact that Edourd Manyim received only a written warning for a broadly similar tail-lift incident. Employment Judge Alliott dissented and would have held that the dismissal was within the reasonable band.

On the disciplinary appeal, the tribunal found that after a fractious first appeal hearing on 5 November 2021 the respondent refused to allow John Neckles to attend the resumed appeal. It held that this breached section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. The tribunal also found a section 12 detriment because the claimant was unable to advance his appeal grounds, while rejecting the grievance-investigation complaint. Remedy, including Acas Code compliance and contributory conduct, was left to a later hearing.