Mr S Waton v Clydesdale Bank plc t/a Virgin Money — 2025

The tribunal heard Mr S Waton's claims against Clydesdale Bank plc t/a Virgin Money in Glasgow arising from his dismissal in April 2024. The dismissal followed three allegations: a customer complaint about his conduct on 12 December 2023, a refusal to work at the front of the Paisley branch because he said it was too cold on 13 December 2023, and a social media post made later that day. The tribunal found that the underlying events themselves were not in dispute; the real issue was how they should be interpreted and what weight the decision-makers gave to them.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal based on conduct under s98 ERA 1996 and that it genuinely believed the misconduct had occurred. It found there was a reasonable basis for that belief from the customer complaint and the broadly consistent evidence of staff witnesses. It also accepted that the respondent was entitled to conclude that the branch temperature did not make the instruction unreasonable, and that it was reasonable to read the social media post as a reference to the respondent because it was posted the same day, referred to being cold, and used the respondent's branding phrase.

The tribunal further held that the investigation and disciplinary process were reasonable overall, including AL's further interviews of relevant witnesses. It found that the claimant had opportunities to put his case, provide further material, and appeal, and that the respondent complied with the ACAS Code. Dismissal was held to be within the band of reasonable responses, and the tribunal rejected the suggestion that the dismissal had been predetermined.

On discrimination arising from disability, the claimant relied on ADHD and said the conduct in allegation 1 was a manifestation of that condition. The tribunal noted that there was no formal diagnosis and little evidence beyond the claimant's assertion as to how ADHD affected his behaviour. It did not finally determine disability status or whether the conduct arose from disability because, even if those matters were assumed in the claimant's favour, it held that dismissal was objectively justified. The tribunal found a legitimate aim in preventing a repeat of rude or aggressive behaviour towards customers and staff, and concluded that dismissal was proportionate because a warning or redeployment would not reliably achieve that aim.