Automated Summary
Key Facts
Mrs. A L Hands was dismissed by Asda Stores Limited for gross misconduct after being involved in an incident on 1 November 2016 where she allegedly colluded with colleague AMW to hide Thorntons cakes and later purchase them at a reduced price. The tribunal found that Asda had reasonable grounds for dismissal based on CCTV evidence showing her involvement in the transaction, and concluded that the dismissal was a fair response under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Issues
- As the potentially fair reason put forward by the respondent is misconduct the Tribunal is to have regard to the guidance set down in the case of British Home Stores v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379 which is:
- Has the respondent established that the reason for the dismissal was misconduct as per section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996?
- If so, did the respondent act reasonably or unreasonably in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the respondent) in treating the misconduct as a sufficient reason for dismissing the claimant?
Holdings
- The Tribunal determined that the respondent (Asda Stores Limited) had a potentially fair reason for dismissal based on misconduct and acted reasonably in treating it as sufficient. The key incident on 1 November 2016, involving the alleged premeditated theft of cakes with AMW, was found to justify the dismissal despite the claimant's explanations.
- The Tribunal rejected the claimant's argument that she was unfairly punished for AMW's actions, emphasizing that her inaction during the transaction (allowing skip scanning) made her complicit. The legal test focused on the employer's reasonableness, not the claimant's innocence under criminal standards.
- The Tribunal concluded that Mr. Millington's decision to dismiss Mrs Hands was within the range of reasonable responses, as he genuinely believed she was involved in gross misconduct and the investigation was adequate. The claimant's appeal was also deemed procedurally fair, though the outcome remained unchanged.
Remedies
The claimant's claim for unfair dismissal fails and is dismissed. The Tribunal found that the respondent acted reasonably in treating the misconduct as a sufficient reason for dismissal, particularly regarding the premeditated act of hiding cakes to purchase them at a reduced price. The appeal against dismissal was also dismissed as the appeal process was deemed reasonable.
Legal Principles
The tribunal applied the legal principles outlined in British Home Stores v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379, assessing whether the employer had an honest belief in the claimant's misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief, and conducted a sufficient investigation. The key legal test was whether the employer acted within the range of reasonable responses based on the evidence, rather than determining the claimant's innocence or guilt under criminal law standards. The tribunal emphasized that the employer's decision must be evaluated for reasonableness in the context of the circumstances, including the size and resources of the business.
Precedent Name
British Home Stores v Burchell
Cited Statute
Employment Rights Act 1996
Judge Name
Barker
Passage Text
- I find that it was reasonable for Mr Millington on the facts before him to act as he did, and it cannot be said that no reasonable employer would have done what this employer did. Therefore, the claimant's claim fails and is dismissed.
- The judgment of the Tribunal is that the claimant's claim for unfair dismissal fails and is dismissed.