Case 6017884/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K O’Connor v Compass Group UK & Ireland Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6017884/2025
- Decision date
- 15 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Milner-Moore
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K O’Connor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal upheld Mr K O’Connor’s complaint of unfair dismissal. It found that Compass Group UK and Ireland Limited genuinely believed that he had committed misconduct and that conduct was the principal reason for dismissal. It rejected his assertion that he was dismissed because he had communicated the College’s concerns about pricing and transparency.
The investigation was reasonable in several respects, including interviewing the kitchen staff, gathering records and photographs, and investigating some of Mr O’Connor’s explanations. However, it fell outside the range of reasonable responses in two significant areas. The respondent did not adequately investigate the disparity between the health and safety audit of 22 November 2024 and the kitchen and freezer conditions found on 7 January 2025, during an intervening period when Mr O’Connor was largely absent. It also failed to obtain sufficient detail about alleged sexual comments other than the comment reported by Linda.
Because the dismissal decision relied on the cumulative effect of multiple allegations as gross misconduct, and there was no reasonable and well-founded belief in two significant allegations, the Tribunal found that dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses. It nevertheless found an 80% chance that the respondent could and would have fairly dismissed Mr O’Connor following a fair investigation, based on the remaining misconduct and the loss of trust and confidence in his management of the kitchen and staff.
The Tribunal separately found blameworthy conduct concerning the reuse and cooling of hot food, inadequate management reports, overtime and recipe-sheet management, and the comment reported by Linda. It directed a 60% reduction to the basic award. No further contributory-conduct reduction was directed for the compensatory award because the Tribunal considered that this would duplicate factors already reflected in the 80% Polkey reduction. Monetary remedy was left for a further hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Remedy was reserved for a further hearing. The Tribunal directed an 80% Polkey reduction to any compensatory award and a 60% reduction to the basic award for the claimant’s conduct. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- range of reasonable responses test
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- Polkey v Dayton Ltd
- s.122 ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- Rao v Civil Aviation Authority
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.