Mr JR MacQuarrie v Represented by: Mr C Reid - Lay Representative Oakminster Healthcare Limited — 2019

Mr JR MacQuarrie was employed by Oakminster Healthcare Limited from 2000 as an assistant chef. On 10 April 2019, while moving food trolleys at Florence House, he damaged a fire door and its locking mechanism. The tribunal found that the respondent treated the matter as potential gross misconduct, investigated it through Mr Simpson, and obtained statements from Ms Macaskill, Mr Kelly and Ms Stenton together with photographs. The claimant accepted that he hit the door, but said this was an accident because the trolley was hot and difficult to manoeuvre. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal, namely conduct, under section 98 of the ERA 1996.

The tribunal held that Ms Ameur genuinely believed the claimant had shown a disregard for company property and had hit the door with sufficient force to cause substantial damage. It found that Mr Simpson’s investigation was reasonable in the circumstances: the witnesses were relevant, the claimant was interviewed, and it was reasonable to ask Mr Kelly about the claimant’s explanation that the trolley wheels were a problem. The tribunal did not consider that further investigation, including speaking to other staff, was necessary before the disciplinary hearing.

A significant issue was that the claimant did not receive the rescheduled 2 May 2019 letter before the disciplinary hearing on 6 May 2019. The tribunal nevertheless found the procedure fair overall. It placed weight on the earlier 29 April 2019 letter, which had enclosed the witness statements, interview notes and policies, warned that dismissal was a possibility, and identified that Ms Ameur would conduct the hearing. It also found that the claimant knew a meeting was taking place on 6 May, did not ask for an adjournment or clarification, and that Mr Ballantyne properly considered the appeal. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the band of reasonable responses test, the tribunal concluded that dismissal was a fair sanction. It therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim and did not assess remedy further. It also recorded that no notice pay was due on summary dismissal and that no evidence had been given on holiday pay.