Mr Manji Vekaria v CCF Ltd — 2022

The tribunal dealt only with unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal at the June 2022 final hearing. It recorded that earlier discrimination claims had been struck out in March 2021 and that whistleblowing was not part of the live list of issues. The claimant had been employed by CCF Ltd from 31 May 2011 until his dismissal on 7 May 2019 for gross misconduct, following a sequence of emails and disciplinary steps arising out of his complaints about data protection and related matters.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had sent repeated emails over several months to employee relations staff and senior managers, including the CEO and General Counsel, and that the emails made allegations of victimisation, discrimination, cover-ups, bullying and blackmail without detail or substantiation. It found that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, that belief was based on reasonable grounds, and the investigation was reasonable because the claimant was told of the allegations, given documents, invited to meetings, allowed a companion, and given an appeal.

The tribunal also found that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. It placed weight on the length and persistence of the conduct, the seniority of the recipients, the tone and content of the emails, the fact that the claimant had been warned by a letter of concern and nevertheless continued, and the absence of any sign that he would stop. It rejected the claimant’s case that the process was concocted or procedurally unfair, including his complaints about missing documents and an alleged investigation report, finding that the documents referred to were provided and that no such report existed.

On the wrongful dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the claimant did commit the conduct alleged and that it amounted to gross misconduct because it destroyed the relationship of trust and confidence between employer and employee. It found the repeated emails to a range of employees, including the CEO, the unsubstantiated allegations, and the refusal to follow the grievance route were sufficiently grave and weighty to justify summary dismissal. Both claims were therefore dismissed and no monetary award was made.