(sitting alone) Dillon Rhind v Represented by Ms D Flanigan, Solicitor Noble Foods Limited — 2019

Dillon Rhind worked for Noble Foods Ltd as a store operative or housekeeper at the Millview site from 10 March 2015 until his dismissal on 13 June 2018. His gross annual salary was £22,373 and his average net weekly salary was £357. His duties included ensuring that the caged chickens in his house had sufficient water, and he had been trained on water checks, the importance of the T/siphon checks, and the alarm system. The tribunal recorded that management regarded the visual check of the T/siphon as the only reliable method of ensuring the birds had water, while the training material also referred to the alarm system.

The events leading to dismissal arose on 5 June 2018, when the claimant noticed a high mortality rate in one colony and reported that there was no red ball in the relevant T/siphon and no water in the line. Around 65 dead chickens were removed on 7 June 2018 and around 80 on 8 June 2018. The tribunal found that there had likely been no water in the line for a number of days, that the alarm did not indicate a problem because it was broken, and that the claimant had been the only shed operative tasked with the water checks in that shed. He had completed and signed morning and afternoon house checks confirming that the water checks had been done.

The respondent suspended the claimant, investigated, and then held a disciplinary hearing on 13 June 2018 and an appeal hearing on 3 July 2018. The dismissing officer found the allegations proven and summarily dismissed him for gross misconduct. The appeal officer conducted a full rehearing, heard the claimant's explanation, and upheld the dismissal. The tribunal noted apparent bias on the part of the dismissing officer, but found no bias or alternative motive on the part of the appeal officer.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996, the Burchell test, and the range of reasonable responses approach from Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones, the tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was conduct and was a potentially fair reason. It found that the appeal officer genuinely believed the claimant had not properly checked the T/siphon, that there were reasonable grounds for that belief, and that a reasonable investigation had been carried out. The tribunal also found no unreasonable failure to comply with the respondent's disciplinary procedure or the ACAS Code. It concluded that the claimant's conduct could fall within the respondent's gross misconduct examples, that the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses, and that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed.