Case 4111405/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Robert Hayes v Represented by Self Co-operative Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4111405/2021
- Decision date
- 14 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Campbell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Robert Hayes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Robert Hayes was employed by Co-operative Group Limited as a warehouse operative from 19 November 2018 until his dismissal on 2 June 2021. The respondent investigated an incident on 26 April 2021 in which the claimant said he had been struck by ice falling from the chamber ceiling. After drug and alcohol testing, interviews with the claimant, Mr Boyd and other operatives, and review of Manhattan warehouse management system data, the respondent concluded on the balance of probabilities that the claimant and Mr Boyd had fabricated the account of the incident. Mr Smith dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct, and that decision was upheld on appeal by Mr Baird and again by Mr Cole.
The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct and applied the approach in British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell, together with the general band of reasonable responses analysis. It held that the decision-makers genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of misconduct, that there were reasonable grounds for that belief, and that the investigation was reasonable in the circumstances. The tribunal accepted that the Manhattan system was not a perfect tracking tool, but found that the respondent was entitled to rely on it alongside the other evidence, including the lack of corroborating witnesses and the timing of Mr Boyd's photograph.
The tribunal also rejected the claimant's criticisms that the investigation was too slow, that witnesses were improperly led, and that the involvement of Ms Erenc created unfairness. It found that the appeal stages independently revisited the evidence and that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses, even if it was towards the higher end of that range. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed. As the claim failed, the tribunal did not need to determine compensation issues further; it recorded that contributory conduct, Polkey, mitigation and other remedy matters did not need to be addressed, although it noted the claimant had obtained new work quickly and had suffered no ongoing financial loss after 11 July 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; no award made because the claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- section 98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.