David Perry v Millstream Day Centre — 2022

Mr David Perry was employed by Millstream Day Centre from 1 July 2013 until his summary dismissal took effect on 17 April 2019. The tribunal recorded that relations between Mr Perry and the trustees deteriorated over time, particularly after the introduction of a more formal appraisal and management process, and it accepted the trustees' evidence that they were trying to monitor and improve performance through repeated meetings, notes, and support rather than moving immediately to discipline.

On the unfair dismissal claim, Employment Judge Cline found that the respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal, namely misconduct, and that the trustees genuinely believed Mr Perry was guilty of the relevant misconduct on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation. The tribunal applied the section 98 ERA 1996 framework and the Burchell/PoFoley line of authority, together with the range of reasonable responses test, and held that the decision to dismiss summarily for gross misconduct was within the band of reasonable responses open to the employer.

On the facts, the tribunal found that Mr Perry repeatedly failed to follow reasonable management instructions about rotas, communication, and administrative tasks; disclosed confidential disciplinary information to members and others; contacted members or volunteers without permission after suspension; and encouraged a centre member to remove a confidential file from the office. One allegation was found not to amount to gross misconduct when considered alone, but the tribunal held that the overall pattern of conduct still amounted to gross misconduct. The tribunal also accepted that there had been an error in the consultant's use of the wrong version of the employee handbook, but found that this did not undermine the trustees' independent decision to dismiss.

The breach of contract claim failed for the same reason. The tribunal held that the established gross misconduct justified summary dismissal without notice, so the claimant was not entitled to his claimed 5 weeks' notice. The holiday pay/unlawful deduction of wages issue also failed because Mr Perry could not clearly explain or evidence the alleged 14.24 hours of unpaid holiday and the tribunal had already dismissed the substantive claims.