In person For the v Respondent — 2021

Mr Camozzi was employed by North Northamptonshire Council as a refuse and recycling driver loader from 4 January 2011 and was summarily dismissed on 18 December 2019 for alleged gross misconduct. The respondent relied on two matters: an alleged aggressive exchange with Dela Moreland on 13 July 2018 and alleged unsafe reversing or reverse loading on 12 July 2018. The tribunal found that the respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal based on misconduct and that Mr Coleman genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of the allegations.

The tribunal rejected the suggestion that the dismissal was motivated by Ms Moreland or Mr James, finding no evidence that Ms Maher or Mr Coleman were influenced by either of them. It accepted that the respondent had concerns about the claimant’s driving practices, supported by CCTV and by evidence from colleagues and training materials, and it found that the disciplinary hearing itself was conducted carefully and sensitively.

The dismissal was nevertheless found to be unfair because the investigation and process took an unreasonable length of time and missed material opportunities to obtain timely evidence. The claimant was suspended for 17 months; Ms Taylor, the only direct witness to the 13 July 2018 incident, was not interviewed until around seven months later; Mr James was not re-interviewed about the reversing concerns; and the claimant was not shown the relevant CCTV until 17 June 2019. The tribunal held that these delays and omissions potentially prejudiced the claimant’s ability to defend himself and rendered the dismissal unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach.

On remedy, the tribunal said that there was a high likelihood the claimant would have been dismissed in any event and that there was significant contributory conduct on his part. It therefore indicated that both the basic and compensatory awards should be reduced by 75% to reflect Polkey and contributory fault, but no monetary figure was fixed in this liability judgment because the case was to be listed for a separate remedy hearing.