Case 3314549/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Lodge Security Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3314549/2019
- Decision date
- 12 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Allen
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningGloria Jordan worked for Lodge Security Ltd as a store security officer from 17 November 2015 until her dismissal with an effective date of 21 January 2019. She brought claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and unpaid annual leave at termination. The tribunal accepted that the disciplinary process was moved on quickly after the 17 January 2019 invitation letter, and that the claimant said she had insufficient time to prepare, but it found the main problem was that material evidence was not provided to her before the hearing on the lesser allegations.
The principal incident was on 16 January 2019. The claimant told Ms Chloe Laws she was going on a break, left her two-way radio at the till, went to a nearby burger outlet and was still away when a fire evacuation occurred at The Glades. The tribunal accepted that she had not been told where the evacuation assembly point was at the New Look store, and that the induction material relied on by the respondent was Primark-specific. It also found that Mr Welch genuinely believed misconduct had occurred, had reasonable grounds for that belief from Ms Laws's account and CCTV, and was entitled to treat leaving the site without permission as gross misconduct under the handbook.
The tribunal held that the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses, but that the procedure was unfair because the claimant was not given the New Look material, including the evidence referred to in the outcome letter and CCTV, in time to answer the allegations properly. Applying Polkey and Software 2000, it found the respondent could and would have dismissed her fairly even with a fair procedure, and that she was 100% responsible for her dismissal, so the basic award and any compensatory award were reduced to nil. The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the conduct was specifically treated as gross misconduct justifying dismissal without notice, and the annual leave issue was left open subject to the order that it would stand withdrawn if not reinstated within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal rejected the allegation of an unfair reason but found the dismissal procedurally unfair. It held the claimant was 100% responsible for her dismissal and that a fair procedure would still have led to dismissal, so no compensation was awarded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held that the conduct relied on by the respondent was gross misconduct under the handbook and that summary dismissal without notice was justified. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment recorded an unpaid annual leave issue at termination, but it was not finally determined in the reasons; the respondent said it was an oversight and the tribunal stated it would stand withdrawn if neither party applied to reinstate it within 14 days. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.98(1) & (2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Software 2000 Limited v Andrews and others
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.