Mr A Rodger v Newsteam Group Ltd. — 2024

The Tribunal heard the claimant's sole claim of unfair dismissal. The respondent admitted dismissal and contended that the reason was conduct. The Tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was the respondent's belief in the claimant's conduct, namely his failure to sign out a van despite requirements to do so and threats made in relation to his manager during a discussion with Ms Elizabeth Bayley.

The Tribunal accepted that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct and that conduct was a potentially fair reason under section 98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the claimant accepted the central facts: he had taken vans without signing them out and had used the words attributed to him by Ms Bayley. The Tribunal held that no substantial factual investigation was required on those admitted matters, and that the disciplinary and appeal procedures were within the band of reasonable responses.

The claimant argued inconsistency by reference to Mr Gary Bulloch and to others allegedly not signing out vans. The Tribunal found the Bulloch case materially different because Mr Bulloch quickly apologised and was not in a supervisory position, whereas the claimant had not shown remorse or insight during the disciplinary and appeal hearings. The Tribunal also found that any inconsistency about signing out vans was of limited relevance because the main issue leading to dismissal was the threat made in relation to Mr Moss-Carbert.

The Tribunal concluded that summary dismissal for gross misconduct was within the band of reasonable responses and that the appeal was also fairly dismissed. The claim was dismissed. No remedy was awarded; the Tribunal stated that, had remedy arisen, it would have made 100% contributory fault and Polkey deductions.