Mr H Hidery v Johnsons Textile Services Limited t/a Johnsons Hotel, Restaurant & Catering Linen by Stalbridge — 2020

The claimant, who had worked for the respondent since May 2011 and had been promoted to Transport Manager, was summarily dismissed on 19 March 2020 after a complaint from his manager, Diane Lee, about remarks and messages including a request for her hotel room number. The respondent suspended and investigated the matter, held a disciplinary hearing on 13 March 2020, and dismissed him for gross misconduct without notice. On appeal, Mr Kar reduced the sanction to dismissal with notice but expressly stated that the date of dismissal remained unchanged at 19 March 2020.

The unfair dismissal claim failed. The tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances. The claimant admitted sending the room-number message, and the tribunal accepted that the respondent was entitled to treat the conduct as inappropriate in context. The dismissal itself, and the investigation and procedure leading to it, were held to fall within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal also rejected the criticism of Ms Amory's involvement, finding that she advised on procedure rather than deciding the case.

The tribunal held that the claimant was not dismissed because he brought tribunal proceedings. The effective date of termination was 19 March 2020, before the first claim was issued, and there was no evidence that Mr Kar's appeal decision was influenced by the existence of the claim. The separate accompaniment and detriment complaints under the Employment Relations Act 1999 were also dismissed. The grievance was submitted after dismissal, so the respondent was not obliged to convene a separate grievance hearing, and in any event the claimant's representative had asked for the appeal to be determined on paper during the pandemic. The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the appeal substituted dismissal with notice, and the unlawful deduction claim failed because no salary was due after the termination date and the bonus scheme required the claimant to be employed when the bonus was paid in April 2020.