Ms Janet Bostic v Mitie Limited — 2026

The Tribunal upheld Ms Janet Bostic's unfair dismissal complaint only because of a procedural defect at the appeal stage. Mitie Limited had a genuine belief in misconduct arising from the incident on 7 October 2024, reasonable grounds for that belief and a reasonable investigation. Most of the disciplinary procedure fell within the range of reasonable responses, but the appeal officer's failure to provide documents requested by Ms Bostic, and his direction that she use a subject access request instead, rendered the overall process procedurally unfair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The Tribunal found that Ms Bostic would inevitably have been dismissed at or substantially the same time if the appeal defect had been cured and therefore reduced the compensatory award by 100% under Polkey. Alternatively, it found that her conduct contributed wholly to the dismissal and would have reduced the compensatory award by 100% under section 123(6). It also reduced the basic award by 100% under section 122(2), finding on the balance of probabilities that she had committed gross misconduct involving departures from the ASCONE and SAFER safety procedures. No compensation, reinstatement or re-engagement was awarded.

The wrongful dismissal/breach of contract complaint for seven weeks' notice pay was dismissed. Applying the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal found that Ms Bostic became involved in a physical confrontation, acted contrary to the ASCONE and SAFER procedures and committed gross misconduct amounting to a repudiatory breach of contract. Mitie Limited was therefore entitled to terminate her employment without notice, and no notice pay was payable.

Mitie Limited conceded that Ms Bostic was disabled by reason of depression and knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, of her disability. Her section 15 discrimination arising from disability complaint was nevertheless dismissed. The Tribunal did not find the alleged unfavourable treatment or the necessary causal connection established; it found that the respondent postponed the disciplinary hearing once, invited requests for adjustments and offered participation by Microsoft Teams, telephone, written representations, a representative or attendance at a neutral venue. In the alternative, it found that proceeding with the process was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims identified in the judgment.

The reasonable-adjustments complaints were dismissed because the alleged provisions, criteria or practices were not established, the claimed substantial disadvantages were not proved, and the respondent had offered alternative means of participating in the disciplinary process. The victimisation complaints were also dismissed. Although Ms Bostic's earlier Tribunal proceedings were a protected act, the Tribunal accepted that the disciplinary and appeal decision-makers were unaware of them and found that the protected act played no part in the procedural shortcomings, difference in disciplinary outcomes or dismissal.