Automated Summary
Key Facts
The respondent is a parking services company that initially struggled financially, recording a loss in 2010. The claimant, Mr. D Moseley, became an Operations Manager in 2010, later serving as a director and 30% shareholder. He agreed with the company owner, Mr. Hart, to increase his pay to £450 net per week when the company's finances improved. During Mr. Hart's incarceration from 2012, the claimant managed the company, which achieved profits of over £85k by 2012 and continued to grow. A family breakdown between Mr. Hart and the claimant post-release led to the claimant's suspension and subsequent disciplinary dismissal in 2017. The disciplinary process involved allegations of misconduct related to pay decisions, recruitment, and unpaid parking tickets, but the tribunal found the process prejudged and substantively unfair.
Transaction Type
Employment contract and directorship disputes
Issues
- The claimant's breach of contract claim succeeded. The tribunal found the respondent failed to prove gross misconduct and acted unreasonably in dismissing without notice. The 2016 contract provided for 3 months' notice, which the claimant was entitled to. The disciplinary process lacked proper investigation and failed to meet reasonable employer standards, constituting a contractual breach.
- The tribunal found the claimant's dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair. The real reason for dismissal was Mr Hart's personal vendetta due to a family breakdown, not the alleged misconduct. The disciplinary process was prejudged, with insufficient investigation into key allegations and failure to consider the claimant's explanations. Procedural failings included lack of genuine belief in misconduct and inadequate appeal process.
- The claimant successfully claimed unpaid wages for the period from 4 January 2017 (when his sick leave ended) to termination. The tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that the suspension was only 2 weeks, finding the suspension was ongoing. The respondent conceded unpaid wages from 19 January 2017 but the claimant's entitlement extended to the full period due to procedural errors in suspension communication.
- The claimant was entitled to 20 days of carried-over 2016 holiday pay under the company's policy and to payment in lieu of 2017 statutory minimum holiday entitlement. The tribunal found the respondent's policy allowed carry-over, and the claimant's inability to take holiday due to suspension justified this entitlement. Disputes over calculation were resolved in favor of the claimant.
Holdings
The Claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, unpaid holiday pay, and breach of contract succeed. The dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair due to the prejudged decision and inadequate investigation. The Claimant is entitled to 3 months' notice pay as per the 2016 contract.
Legal Principles
- The employer's investigation was found to lack good faith, as the process was prejudged and failed to address key allegations adequately, undermining procedural fairness.
- The tribunal assessed whether the employer's reasons for dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses, considering the size and resources of the employer and the fairness of the process.
- The employer bears the burden of proving that the dismissal was fair, including demonstrating a genuine belief in the employee's misconduct based on reasonable grounds and a fair investigation.
Precedent Name
Burchell v British Home Stores
Key Disputed Contract Clauses
- The 2016 contract extended the claimant's notice period to three months. The respondent argued this was an error and denied the claimant's entitlement to notice pay. The tribunal concluded the longer notice period was valid and reasonable, aligning with Mr. Dickinson's recommendation to standardize notice terms across the company.
- The tribunal examined the claimant's 2016 contract clause regarding his pay increase to £606 gross (resulting in £450 net). The respondent alleged this was unauthorized misconduct, but the tribunal found the contract reflected a prior agreement with Mr. Hart to increase pay to match the claimant's previous earnings once company finances improved.
- The disciplinary process alleged the claimant breached a contract clause by failing to obtain a reference for Mr. Dickinson. The tribunal found this failure could not constitute gross misconduct, as reasonable employers would not expect such strict adherence and recruitment agents were responsible for checks.
Cited Statute
- Employment Tribunals Act 1996, section 12A
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- Employment Rights Act 1996, s.98
Judge Name
Employment Judge Broughton
Passage Text
- I find that the real reason for the dismissal was Mr Hart's view of the breakdown in the relationship between himself and the claimant. It was not, therefore, conduct as claimed by the respondent.
- The Claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, unpaid holiday pay and breach of contract succeed.
- In light of all of the above the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair.