In person For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant was employed from 12 September 2011 and worked as a concierge from 2014. In February and March 2018 concerns arose about ordering via Fabulous Hampers, a business run by the claimant's former manager Ms Geddes, and about the claimant sending the respondent's purchasing card to Ms Geddes on two occasions. After investigation, disciplinary proceedings were brought and the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct on 15 May 2018, with the appeal dismissed on 8 July 2018.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent had shown a potentially fair reason for dismissal, namely misconduct. It found that the claimant had given favourable treatment to Fabulous Hampers, resulting in the respondent paying more for champagne than it otherwise would have done, and that she had misused the company credit card by posting it to Ms Geddes on 2 and 23 February 2018, contrary to the cardholder declaration and the respondent's standards. The tribunal also found that the process was largely fair in procedural terms: the claimant was accompanied, investigated, invited to a disciplinary hearing, and given an appeal.

The dismissal was nevertheless found unfair because the respondent did not properly consider the claimant's medical evidence about her mental health at the relevant time. The claimant had produced GP and crisis-team material showing severe depression and suicidal ideation around late January 2018, but the disciplinary and appeal decision-makers focused on whether she had been supported by management and did not independently consider whether her mental state might have affected her judgment or whether further occupational health evidence should have been obtained. The tribunal held that this omission took the process outside the range of reasonable responses.

On remedy, the tribunal applied a 50% reduction for Polkey, finding there was a significant chance that a fair process with further medical investigation could still have resulted in dismissal, but also a significant chance that the claimant would have avoided dismissal if her mental health had been properly considered. It then applied a further 50% reduction for contributory conduct, holding that the claimant's misuse of the credit card was blameworthy and contributed to the dismissal, although her stress and depression were relevant mitigating factors. The extracted text does not state the final monetary award figures.