Ms A Love v Paisley Indoor Bowling Club plc — 2020

Ms A Love was found to have been unfairly dismissed by Paisley Indoor Bowling Club PLC. The tribunal fixed the effective date of termination at 18 March 2020. It found that after the 19 February 2020 meeting the parties continued to act on the basis that employment was ongoing, and that the respondent then gave notice on 3 March 2020 that employment would end on 18 March 2020. The principal reason for dismissal was conduct, arising from concerns about the claimant's handling of finance, passwords, holiday arrangements, and her reaction to management queries.

The dismissal was nevertheless unfair because the respondent's investigation was limited and the procedure was not fair. The tribunal found that before deciding to end the employment on 2 March 2020, the respondent had not taken reasonable steps to investigate all of the concerns, had not put the allegations to the claimant in writing, had not held a disciplinary hearing, and had not offered an appeal. The tribunal also found that the ACAS Code and the respondent's own disciplinary procedure were not followed.

On remedy, the tribunal held that the claimant's contractual salary, after the guaranteed annual rises in her contract, was £23,493.63 per year and that the basic award would have been £11,069.10. It found the compensatory loss was limited to two months' net pay plus £350 for loss of statutory rights, giving £3,542, because it was satisfied she would in any event have been fairly dismissed for gross misconduct by 18 May 2020. Both the basic award and compensatory award were then reduced to zero for the claimant's conduct.

The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found that the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct or a fundamental breach, so the respondent was entitled to terminate without notice. The holiday pay deduction claim also failed. The tribunal held that the written conditions of employment established a January-to-December leave year, treated the table in that document as illustrative rather than governing, and concluded that by 18 March 2020 the claimant had taken all of the leave she had accrued in that leave year. A separate deductions complaint relating to March 2020 was withdrawn during the hearing.