In person For the v Priya Nainthy, Solicitor — 2021

The claimant started work for Siemens on 1 February 2018 as a Technician Level 3 on a permanent contract and was required to follow the respondent’s Flexit policy. The tribunal found that he initially complied, but later could not always meet the overtime requirement because of caring responsibilities for his elderly mother. It also found that, before the dismissal, there had been some informal flexibility around his working pattern and that a grievance outcome later recorded poor communication by all parties and inadequate advice about the exemption process.

The dismissal arose from a heated meeting on 3 October 2019 about flex hours, followed by disciplinary action for alleged unacceptable behaviour, refusal to follow a reasonable management instruction, threatening behaviour, and later emails to Sarah Selwood. The tribunal accepted that the claimant became angry, pointed his finger, swore, used rude language, and sent inappropriate emails, but it found that the more serious allegations had become progressively more serious over time and that relevant contradictory statements were omitted from or ignored in the disciplinary material.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996, the Burchell approach, and the range of reasonable responses test, the tribunal held that dismissal for gross misconduct was unfair. It found that the charges were not clearly formulated, the investigation was not balanced, the respondent did not properly consider mitigating context, and it could not reasonably treat the claimant’s conduct as gross misconduct. The respondent’s appeal process upheld the dismissal, but that did not alter the tribunal’s finding that the dismissal was unfair. The claim succeeded on liability only, with remedy left to a separate hearing and a note that any award would likely be reduced for contributory conduct.