Mr J Nevin v Limited (in Liquidation) — 2025

The respondent dismissed the claimants after allegations that they had charged electric vehicles from portacabins in the Jetty area. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had established a potentially fair conduct reason for dismissal, based on beliefs that the claimants had charged vehicles without permission and that this involved health and safety concerns; in some cases the respondent also relied on alleged fraudulent use of electricity or alleged failure to meet managerial standards.

The tribunal found the dismissals unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996. It held that the same manager conducted both the investigation and disciplinary hearings despite other suitable managers being available, and that he had prejudged that the claimants were guilty of gross misconduct and would be dismissed before the disciplinary hearings. The appeals did not cure those defects, because the appeal officers treated their role as a review, relied on technical material obtained after the appeal hearings without giving the claimants an opportunity to comment, and in some cases did not address the fraud allegation.

The tribunal also concluded that dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses. It took into account matters including the claimants' clean disciplinary records, the lack of a clear prohibition before November 2023, the absence of findings that they continued charging after the November 2023 email, and the respondent's own policy distinctions between misconduct and gross misconduct. The tribunal dismissed the section 152 TULRCA claims, finding insufficient evidence that the principal reason for dismissal was trade union membership or use of trade union services rather than conduct-related reasons.