Claimant v WC Willis & Co Ltd — 2017

The claimant, a warehouse manager employed from March 2010, was summarily dismissed on 27 July 2016 after a disciplinary process about alleged misconduct, including alleged intimidation of colleagues and alleged falsification of hours. The tribunal found that the respondent did not establish that conduct was the reason or principal reason for dismissal under section 98(1) and section 98(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It held instead that the dismissal resulted from a breakdown in the relationship between the claimant and Stuart Boyd, arising from the handling of a January 2016 car park incident and the deterioration in relations that followed.

The tribunal also rejected the claim that the dismissal was because of trade union membership. Although Mr Boyd had asked the claimant in May 2016 whether he had joined a union, and the claimant said he had joined for protection after issues with childcare vouchers and sick pay, the tribunal did not find that union membership was the reason or principal reason for dismissal. The tribunal considered that the respondent's process lacked sufficient specificity and transparency: the claimant was not told precisely what conduct was said to amount to gross misconduct, several allegations were not properly particularised with the witnesses, and the claimant's complaints about collusion were not investigated.

Applying the Burchell approach and section 98(4) ERA 1996 in the alternative, the tribunal found the investigation inadequate and the appeal process unfair. Peter Callender took account of matters that had not been put to the claimant and did not conduct a proper review of the dismissal decision. The tribunal made no Polkey reduction, but it reduced both the basic award and compensatory award by 20% for contributory conduct arising from the claimant's role in the car park incident, and then applied a 10% uplift under section 207A TULRA 1992 for unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code. The final awards were a basic award of £3,210.24 and a compensatory award of £24,592.48, making a total award of £27,802.72, subject to recoupment of the prescribed element.