MR J CROOKS v Sky In-Home Services Ltd — 2019

The claimant, a field service engineer employed from 15 February 2017, was dismissed on 30 August 2019 after a Home Safe check on 10 July 2019. The tribunal recorded that the dismissal was for conduct, arising from an alleged breach of the respondent’s health and safety procedures while working at height, including the use of an eyebolt, ratchet strap and rope grab. The claimant said he was cabling rather than working on the satellite dish and that he had not committed the alleged breach.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant was not using an eyebolt or ratchet strap, but found, on the balance of probability, that during the disciplinary process he said he was not using a rope grab and sought to justify that position. It preferred the evidence of Mr Knight, supported by the contemporaneous notes, over the claimant’s later oral evidence that he had in fact been attached to a rope grab. It also found that the claimant had failed to show that the investigation notes were materially inaccurate.

On procedure, the tribunal held that the investigation, disciplinary hearing and appeal were all within the range of reasonable responses. It considered the absence of photographs, the fact that the issue was not raised immediately at the customer’s premises, and inconsistencies in the witness accounts, but treated these matters as minor or non-prejudicial in the circumstances. It found that the claimant had been told in the invitation letter that the allegations, if upheld, could amount to gross misconduct and lead to dismissal.

Applying the Burchell criteria and the reasonable response test under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal concluded that the respondent had reasonable grounds for its belief, carried out a reasonable investigation, adopted a fair procedure, and imposed a proportionate sanction. It therefore held that the dismissal was fair and the unfair dismissal claim failed. In case it was wrong on fairness, the tribunal said the claimant’s failure to use a rope grab would in any event have justified a 100% reduction to any basic and compensatory award for contributory conduct.