Claimant v United Cleaning Solutions Ltd — 2022

Ms B Buchan worked as a site supervisor at Glasgow Kelvin College's Springburn campus and had continuous service from 15 February 2015, transferring to United Cleaning Solutions Ltd under TUPE on 13 February 2017. She was summarily dismissed on 7 February 2022 after disciplinary proceedings arising from workplace conflict involving Diana McFadden and Steven McFadden, including an admitted comment on 18 October 2021 that she would punch Steven McFadden in the face if he kept growling at her.

The tribunal found the dismissal unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996 because the respondent's investigation and disciplinary process were not objectively reasonable. It found the provenance of the witness statements unclear, that Nadine Taylor was both a material witness and the effective investigator, that the claimant was not given a proper chance to answer further evidence obtained from Taylor, and that key witnesses were not properly tested or recorded. It also criticised the appeal stage because Julie Barnett took further undisclosed evidence from Taylor and the post-hearing discussion between Kathleen Macdonald, Jeanette Rollo and Donna Glass gave rise to concern about even-handedness.

Even if the process had been fair, the tribunal held dismissal would not have been within the range of reasonable responses on the evidence available. It found the claimant's 18 October 2021 comment was inappropriate and blameworthy, but in the workplace context, and given the response of the managers present, it did not amount to conduct justifying summary dismissal. The tribunal also rejected the proposition that the alleged failure to arrange cover for Steven McFadden's work made gross misconduct out of the case.

For remedy, the tribunal assessed a basic award of £2,380.86 and a compensatory award of £2,030.72, producing a total award of £4,411.58. It allowed £1,530.72 for losses to 21 March 2022, when the claimant started NHS employment, and £500 for loss of statutory rights, but rejected continuing loss after that date because the claimant chose not to seek additional hours or other work. The tribunal applied a 25% uplift for the respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code, but also reduced the awards by 20% for contributory conduct.