Mr. G Lee- Solicitor For the v Mr. R Chaudhry- Solicitor — 2023

The claimant, Mr Shane Hill, was employed as a Delivery and Collection Manager from 19 August 2019 until his dismissal on 14 March 2022. The respondent said he had intended to steal an iPhone that had been handed in on 17 November 2021. The tribunal found that the phone was handed to Mr Hill by David Billyard in the presence of Charley Austin, that Mr Hill said he placed it in a Parcelforce envelope, and that he later told Mr Sells where it was. It also found that the claimant should have raised the matter sooner, but that his failure to do so did not of itself justify summary dismissal.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied the Burchell test and section 98(4) ERA 1996. It held that the respondent reacted too quickly, treated Mr Hill as a suspect before first asking him for an explanation, and failed to carry out a reasonable and even-handed investigation. The tribunal found that the office search and the approach to CCTV did not comply with the respondent’s own search procedures, that Mr Sells adopted a closed position before the fact-finding meeting, and that he did not properly test the claimant’s account. It also found that Mr Willets, who dismissed Mr Hill after the disciplinary hearing, failed to stand back and consider whether the evidence supported dishonesty or only a failure of judgement, and that dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses.

On direct race discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal found that Mr Hill was a black male of Caribbean ethnicity and that he was treated less favourably because of race. It held that he was stereotyped and that, unlike the simple approach taken with Mr Billyard, the respondent moved quickly to suspicion and did not give Mr Hill the benefit of the doubt. The tribunal found that the investigation and disciplinary process were predetermined from an early stage and that the appeal did not cure the earlier defects. The tribunal therefore upheld both the unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims, but this judgment did not record any monetary award.