In person For the v Mr R Barker, Partner Mills & Reeve LLP — 2022

The claimant, Mr Entwistle, was employed as Managing Director of London Fields Brewery. His dismissal followed events on 6 August 2020, when he hosted eight friends in the tap room and then took them on a guided tour of the brewery area. The respondent relied on health and safety concerns arising from the Covid-19 restrictions and from rules set out in an email sent by Mr Provis-Evans on 15 June 2020. The tribunal found that the email contained clear rules, not merely guidance, and that the claimant and his guests breached them in the brewery area, including by not wearing face masks.

The tribunal accepted that staff were concerned about the claimant's conduct and that those concerns led to an investigation by Mr Ray, a disciplinary hearing before Mr Stubbs, and an appeal before Mr Stringer. It found that the investigation was meticulous, that the claimant was given a proper opportunity to put his case, and that the hearing and appeal were conducted in accordance with ACAS guidance. The tribunal also found that Mr Stubbs and Mr Stringer were entitled to conclude that the claimant had not followed the respondent's health and safety policies and procedures.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, including section 98(4), and referred to the misconduct guidance in Burchall and Post Office v Foley. It held that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief after a reasonable investigation, and was entitled to dismiss him. The dismissal decision was said to fall within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.

On breach of contract, the claimant sought notice pay after being dismissed without notice. The tribunal held that the claimant's conduct, taken in the brewery and in the days after, amounted to a clear and substantial breach of contract and gross misconduct. It therefore found that the respondent was entitled to dismiss without notice and dismissed the breach of contract claim.