Mr C Peden v Chanlon Group Limited — 2022

The tribunal proceeded in the Respondent's absence for much of the hearing, then reconvened to hear from Mr Hanlon, who said the wrong company within the group had been sued. The tribunal did not accept that explanation as a basis to abort the hearing and decided the case on the evidence before it. The Claimant's employment ran from 27 October 2017 until summary dismissal on 9 June 2022. The tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was conduct, which is a potentially fair reason under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and then considered fairness under section 98(4).

The tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair. It found that it was not clear what evidence the Respondent had relied on to form a belief in misconduct, and that there had been an abject failure to provide the Claimant with the basic details of the allegations. The limited material shown to him consisted of two photographs of an alleged defective boiler installation that had not been performed by him. The tribunal therefore concluded that the Respondent did not have reasonable grounds to sustain a belief of misconduct and did not carry out a reasonable investigation. It also found that the Respondent did not have a genuine and reasonable belief of misconduct and that dismissal fell outside the band of reasonable responses.

The tribunal referred to the Burchell test, section 98(4) ERA 1996, the range of reasonable responses, Polkey, and the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance matters. It held that there was no basis for a Polkey reduction because the Respondent had totally failed to investigate and follow a fair process. It also found that the Respondent had consciously chosen not to provide the Claimant with the allegations or evidence against him and awarded the maximum ACAS uplift of 25%.

On remedy, the tribunal made a basic award of £2,284 and a compensatory award of £9,400.82, which it uplifted by 25% to £11,751.03. The compensatory award included pension loss, one week of lost pay, future and past earnings difference, loss of statutory rights, job seeking expenses, and mileage to and from meetings. It also awarded £501.60 for four days of accrued but unpaid holiday pay. The Claimant had secured alternative employment within a week and the tribunal found he had mitigated his loss.