Mr G Sims (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2020

The tribunal found that Mr Paul Renforth was dismissed for some other substantial reason, namely personality clashes and/or irreconcilable differences between colleagues at London Luton Airport Operations Ltd. It accepted that the Respondent genuinely believed the Station Managers did not wish to work with him and that there were reasonable grounds for that belief, based on the material before Mr Thompson and Mr Martin.

The dismissal was nevertheless held to be unfair under s98(4) ERA 1996 because the investigation and process fell outside the band of reasonable responses. The tribunal found that Mr Thompson did not speak directly to the Station Managers, relied on written statements and second-hand reports, and that Mr Renforth was not given all the documents relied on or a proper chance to challenge them. The process began with an invitation to discuss his "potential dismissal", and the tribunal held that the Respondent reversed the burden onto him to show why he should not be dismissed.

The tribunal also found that the Respondent failed to take reasonable steps to try to preserve the working relationships before dismissal. It did not pursue mediation, did not implement the earlier recommendation for mediation between Mr Renforth and Mr Allen, did not trial shift-swapping, and did not explore whether he could work under Mr Inskip. It therefore held that the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair.

On remedy-related findings, the tribunal held that a Polkey reduction of 50% should apply to the compensatory award and that Mr Renforth contributed to his dismissal to the extent of 50%, to be applied to both the basic and compensatory awards. It also held that the ACAS dismissal Code did not apply to this SOSR dismissal, so no uplift or downshift under s207A TULR(C)A 1992 was made. Remedy was listed for a later hearing.