Mr C Peterson v Lindsey Clerk Brothers Limited — 2019

Mr Peterson was employed as a delivery driver from 17 June 2015 until 10 April 2019. On 10 April he discovered a pension deduction he considered too high, compared his payslip with a colleague's, and spoke to Mr Hounsome about it. The tribunal accepted Mr Peterson's evidence that he said he was leaving for the day and asked Mr Hounsome to tell Andrew Keen to call him, rather than the more abusive words later attributed to him in the respondent's correspondence.

The tribunal found that Mr Peterson did not intend to resign. It held that he spoke in the heat of the moment after becoming upset about pay, and that his later contact with Mr Hounsome and Andrew Keen the next day showed he was seeking to return and discuss the issue. The respondent accepted the conversation as a resignation on 11 April without allowing a sufficient cooling-off period, so the unfair dismissal claim succeeded.

Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell misconduct analysis, the tribunal accepted that Andrew Keen genuinely believed Mr Peterson had behaved inappropriately, but found there were no reasonable grounds and no reasonable investigation. There was no meeting with the claimant, no disciplinary or appeal process, no ACAS-compliant procedure, and no proper consideration of the surrounding circumstances. The tribunal also found that, had a fair process been followed, Mr Peterson would not have been dismissed.

The tribunal found contributory conduct: Mr Peterson used profanity, left without permission, and acted in a way that was blameworthy enough to warrant some disciplinary investigation. It assessed contribution at 30% and said a 25% uplift would apply for the failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice at all. Remedy was not assessed because the claimant had not provided pay details or a schedule of loss, so a separate remedy hearing was listed. The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded because the contract provided for notice, the respondent did not show the conduct amounted to serious misconduct justifying summary dismissal, and the contract language referred to being 'found guilty' of gross misconduct, implying a process that had not been followed.