In person. For the v Mr D Frame, Solicitor — 2019

The tribunal found that Mr Harmer was dismissed for some other substantial reason, which is a potentially fair reason for dismissal within section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It nevertheless held that DDV Limited, trading as McDonalds, acted unfairly in all the circumstances in treating that reason as sufficient to dismiss him.

Applying Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited, the tribunal concluded that Mr Harmer would have been dismissed fairly at a later date. It found that it would have taken the respondent no longer than three weeks to convene a formal disciplinary or dismissal hearing, at which he would have been dismissed for some other substantial reason because the employment relationship had irretrievably broken down.

The tribunal also found that Mr Harmer’s conduct before dismissal made it just and equitable to reduce the basic award to nil under section 122(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It further found that the dismissal was caused or contributed to by the claimant’s action, so it would not be just and equitable to make a compensatory award under section 123 of the Act.

No monetary award was therefore made, despite the finding that the dismissal was unfair. The judgment records nil basic award and no compensatory award.