Mr J Glendinning v Mitsubishi Electric Air Conditioning Systems Europe Ltd — 2019

The claimant, Mr J Glendinning, worked for the respondent as a Process Co-ordinator on night shift. He had received a final written warning on 25 January 2018 in relation to his conduct. In June 2018 the respondent investigated an allegation that he had been shouting at and aggressive towards a colleague, AO, during the night shift. The investigation included accounts from AO, Alex Ling and KG, as well as the claimant’s account. The claimant said the incident arose when an aluminium piece came off, burnt his glove, and was flipped into the machine, and denied any altercation.

The disciplinary hearing on 25 July 2018 was conducted by AM. He preferred the evidence of AO and AL, found the allegation of inappropriate language and aggressive behaviour proved, and decided to dismiss the claimant for misconduct, taking account of the live final written warning. The appeal was heard by RA and IR, who reinterviewed witnesses and upheld the dismissal. The tribunal accepted that the respondent’s reason for dismissal was the claimant’s conduct, which was a potentially fair reason under s98(2)(b) ERA 1996.

Applying s98(4) ERA 1996 and the guidance in British Home Stores v Burchell and Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones, the tribunal found that AM genuinely believed the claimant had used inappropriate language and acted aggressively, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a reasonable investigation. The tribunal held that the respondent’s procedure was fair and reasonable, including the investigation, disciplinary hearing and appeal. It also noted that the claimant’s allegation at tribunal that there had been a vendetta or conspiracy was not raised at the disciplinary hearing and was therefore not part of AM’s decision-making. The dismissal was found to fall within the band of reasonable responses, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.