In person For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant, Mr M P Wager, worked for Coca-Cola European Partners Great Britain Ltd from 1984 until his summary dismissal in June 2019 as a Technical Representative. At the start of the hearing the tribunal refused the respondent's strike-out application, but it also refused the claimant's late application to amend his case to add automatic unfair dismissal and Equality Act age discrimination claims. The case therefore proceeded only as an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s.94(1) ERA 1996.

The tribunal found that the claimant's role involved visiting customers to install, repair and service equipment, including electrical work, so safe working and accurate records were important. After a complaint arising from the Marquis of Lorne on 1 May 2019, the respondent investigated and identified further concerns about falsely recording a PAT test in ServiceMax, failing on multiple occasions to carry out or record PAT tests, and conduct towards the customer. Applying the Burchell approach and s.98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal accepted that the dismissing officer genuinely believed the misconduct had occurred, that belief was based on reasonable grounds, and the investigation was reasonable.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that the investigation was a sham or that the complaint had been used as a pretext to reduce headcount. It found the claimant's evidence inconsistent in places and preferred the respondent's account on the key issues. It also found that the claimant's explanations did not make the dismissing officer's belief unreasonable, particularly given the repeated nature of the concerns, the safety implications of the work, the claimant's live final warning, and the mentoring and support already provided.

The tribunal held that summary dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses open to the respondent. It also found that the appeal, heard by Mrs C Bottle and dismissed by letter dated 13 November 2019, did not reveal any unfairness in the original decision. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed and no monetary award was made.