Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Employment Tribunal found that Mr. P Frankland, a Senior Maintenance Technician with over 7 years of service, was unfairly dismissed by Nexia Scientific Limited on 22 August 2019. The Tribunal determined that the Respondent failed to establish a genuine belief on reasonable grounds regarding the alleged misconduct (time sheet discrepancies, alleged aggressive behavior, and insubordination), did not conduct a reasonable investigation, and made the decision to dismiss without notice before the disciplinary hearing. The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay a basic award of £5,512.50, a compensatory award of £33,298.00, and notice pay of £3,526.18. The Tribunal also found that the Claimant's claims of age discrimination, harassment, and indirect age discrimination were out of time or unsubstantiated.
Issues
- The tribunal had to determine whether the Respondent dismissed the Claimant for a potentially fair reason (misconduct) and whether the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer, considering the size and administrative resources of the Respondent and having regard to equity and the substantial merits of the case.
- The tribunal had to determine whether the Respondent's conduct had the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the Claimant due to his age, as required under section 26 Equality Act 2010.
- The tribunal had to determine whether the Respondent applied a provision, criterion or practice that put the Claimant at a disadvantage due to his age, and whether this was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, as required under section 19 Equality Act 2010.
- The tribunal had to determine whether the Respondent dismissed the Claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice pay, as the Respondent did not provide the required 7 weeks' notice pay.
- The tribunal had to determine whether the Respondent treated the Claimant less favourably because of his age in relation to dismissal, training and development opportunities, provision of electronic equipment, salary references, disciplinary action, and company car removal, as required under section 13 Equality Act 2010.
Holdings
The Employment Tribunal found that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded him basic and compensatory awards totaling £38,810.50. The Tribunal also found that the Claimant was dismissed in breach of contract and awarded him £3,526.18 in notice pay. The Claimant's claims of age discrimination, harassment, and other related claims were dismissed as they were either out of time or not substantiated.
Remedies
- The tribunal awarded a compensatory award of £33,298.00 to the claimant for unfair dismissal. This covers loss of basic salary, pension loss, loss of company car, and statutory rights.
- The tribunal awarded 7 weeks' notice pay of £3,524.08 to the claimant for breach of contract. The tribunal found the respondent was not entitled to terminate the claimant's employment without notice.
- The tribunal awarded a basic award of £5,512.50 to the claimant for unfair dismissal. This is calculated based on 7 years of service at 1.5 times the weekly pay of £525.
Monetary Damages
42336.68
Legal Principles
- The tribunal applied the principles of natural justice, requiring employers to follow a fair procedure when dismissing employees. This was referenced from the British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell case, which established that employers must act reasonably and fairly in disciplinary processes.
- The employer bore the burden of proof to establish that the dismissal was for a potentially fair reason, as required by section 98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found that the employer failed to meet this burden.
- The tribunal had to be satisfied that the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer, taking into account the size and administrative resources of the employer. The tribunal found the employer did not meet this standard.
Precedent Name
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited
Cited Statute
- Equality Act 2010
- Employment Rights Act 1996
Judge Name
Employment Judge Hutchinson
Passage Text
- We are not satisfied that the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.
- There was no reasonable investigation into the allegation and they did not give him a fair hearing. He was 'ambushed' in respect of the investigatory meeting having been invited to Mr Dexter's home and not being told that he would be confronted with these serious allegations as the Respondent's saw them.
- We are satisfied that Mr Frankland did not contribute in any meaningful way to his dismissal. The Respondents alleged that the Claimant was the 'author of his own destiny'. We do not accept that. We are in fact satisfied that the Respondent's were the author of their own destiny and it was not surprising he acted in the way that he did and we are satisfied that the Respondents should have known that he would react in the way that he did.