Did not attend (written representations). For the v Reverend J Boyd and Mr M Stevenson, Treasurer. — 2020

The claimant worked as a caretaker for the respondent from 4 November 2013 for about 12.5 hours per week. The dispute arose after trustees and the booking officer attended the church rooms on 3, 4 and 5 September 2019 and found that the alarm had not been set, internal doors were not locked, and the opening and closing schedule had been completed as though the alarm had been set. The claimant was suspended on 6 September 2019, invited to a disciplinary hearing on 9 September 2019, and dismissed with immediate effect on 13 September 2019 for gross misconduct after the disciplinary panel concluded that he had decided not to set the alarm at the close of hirings and had not raised that issue with the trustees or his line manager.

The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence and gave limited weight to the claimant's written case because he did not attend to be questioned. It found that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, based on the reports from the cleaning contractor and the trustees' own visits, and that it had carried out a reasonable investigation. Applying s.98 ERA 1996, s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell guidance, the tribunal held that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses, including because incorrect security records could have had insurance and security implications.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's submission that the reason given at suspension and invitation differed from the reason given for dismissal, finding that the documents consistently concerned his not setting the alarm overnight while recording that he had done so. It therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. On the monetary side, it found no evidence that any further sums were due and dismissed the remaining claims, noting that the ET1 narrative appeared to concern unpaid holiday pay.