Mr. A Little v Lagwell Insulation Company Limited — 2022

The claimant, Mr A Little, was employed by Lagwell Insulation Company Limited from 18 January 1999 until his dismissal on 19 March 2021, working as a Thermal Insulation Engineer. The respondent dismissed him summarily for gross misconduct after allegations arising from work at North Shields, including leaving site early, drinking alcohol, alleged discrepancies in hours claimed, alleged dishonesty to the client and management, and a road traffic collision after he had been drinking. The claimant accepted that he left work early and had consumed alcohol, but he told the tribunal that he disputed drinking during working hours and said he was dealing with personal problems, alcohol dependency and ill health at the time.

The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was misconduct and that Ms Irvine genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, so misconduct was a potentially fair reason under the Employment Rights Act 1996. However, applying Burchell and section 98(4), it held that the respondent did not act reasonably in treating the allegations as a sufficient reason for dismissal. The first three allegations were not sufficiently investigated or properly supported on the evidence: the tribunal did not accept that the discrepancy in hours worked was made out, found no reasonable basis for saying the claimant lied to the client about leaving site, and found no evidence supporting the allegation that he lied about his work progress.

The tribunal also held that the alcohol allegation was not properly framed or explored. It noted that the employee handbook referred to drunkenness during work hours as gross misconduct, but the allegation put to the claimant was only that he was consuming alcohol in work hours, and the respondent did not investigate the nature, place or extent of the drinking in sufficient detail. The fifth allegation, leaving site without permission, was treated in the handbook as a minor offence, and the sixth allegation was effectively an extension of the alcohol allegation rather than a separately reasoned basis for dismissal. The tribunal concluded that the overall procedure was not fair and reasonable, that the dismissal was not within the band of reasonable responses, and that capability or some other substantial reason were not the true reasons for dismissal.

On remedy, the tribunal said that if a fair procedure had been followed, the claimant would still have been dismissed summarily. It therefore applied a 100% Polkey reduction to compensation and a 100% contributory conduct reduction to both the basic and compensatory awards. It assessed the notional basic award at £9,684 and the notional compensatory award at £163.20 before reductions, but ultimately no sum was payable. It also said that, had the awards not already been reduced to nil, it would have reduced any award by a further 25% under section 207A(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 because the claimant did not appeal.