Automated Summary
Key Facts
Mr M Hayward (37) was summarily dismissed by Noel Chadwick Limited after a Facebook post to his girlfriend about meat prices from Fresh Meat Packs North West Limited. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair due to lack of prior warning, no disciplinary hearing, no right to appeal, and no explanation provided. The claimant had 7½ years of service with no prior conduct issues. The employer conceded procedural failings but argued the post breached social media policy. The tribunal determined the action did not constitute gross misconduct and awarded £6,091 in total compensation (including £2,177 basic award and £2,714 compensatory award).
Issues
- The tribunal needed to decide the amount of compensation, including basic and compensatory awards, and whether to apply a 25% uplift for breach of the ACAS Code.
- The tribunal had to determine whether the claimant's dismissal was unfair due to the respondent's failure to follow proper disciplinary procedures, including the lack of prior warning, opportunity to explain, and no appeal process.
- The tribunal considered whether to reduce the compensation under the Polkey principle, which assesses the likelihood of dismissal even if proper procedures were followed.
- The tribunal had to determine if the claimant's actions contributed to his dismissal, potentially warranting a reduction in compensation.
Holdings
- The respondent's failure to follow proper disciplinary procedures was found to be 'wholly mishandled'. The claimant was not given notice, reasons for the meeting, opportunity to explain, or an appeal. The tribunal ordered a 25% uplift in compensation for breaching the ACAS Code.
- The tribunal determined the claimant's Facebook post about meat prices did not constitute gross misconduct. The employer's argument that the post harmed reputation or caused financial loss was rejected as 'fanciful'. The claimant's actions were deemed minor and not deserving of dismissal.
- The claimant is entitled to £260 for loss of statutory rights and £1,911 for earnings loss between 14 April 2016 and 3 June 2016. The total compensation includes reimbursement of £1,200 tribunal fees, making the final sum £6,091.
- The claimant's claim for unfair dismissal and notice pay succeeds. The respondent is ordered to pay £6,091 in total compensation, including a basic award of £2,177 and a compensatory award of £2,714. The dismissal was found to be procedurally unfair with no chance of a fair dismissal even if proper process had been followed. No contributory fault was found.
Remedies
- The claimant is reimbursed tribunal fees of £1,200, which were previously paid by him.
- Compensatory award of £2,714.00, which includes a 25% markup due to the breach of the ACAS Code by the employer during dismissal.
- Basic award of £2,177.00, calculated based on the claimant's age and length of service.
Monetary Damages
6091.00
Legal Principles
The tribunal relied on the Polkey principle (judicial review context) to evaluate the probability of dismissal even with proper procedural adherence. It also considered whether the claimant's conduct contributed to his dismissal, though no such contribution was found.
Precedent Name
Polkey v A E Dixon
Key Disputed Contract Clauses
- The claimant's breach of contract claim focused on notice pay. The tribunal ruled the respondent must compensate for notice pay, which was incorporated into the compensatory award calculation. The respondent conceded procedural errors but did not dispute the notice pay obligation.
- The claimant alleged the respondent failed to follow proper disciplinary procedures, including providing notice, allowing explanation, and offering an appeal. The tribunal found the process was 'wholly mishandled,' with no opportunity for the claimant to defend his actions or appeal the decision.
Cited Statute
Employment Rights Act 1996
Judge Name
Employment Judge Robinson
Passage Text
- This was a wholly mishandled dismissal root and branch. I could not find on the evidence before me that a properly carried out disciplinary process would have concluded that what the claimant did was deserving of dismissal or even of sanction. I certainly could not find that dismissal was a sanction within the band of reasonable responses. I find that there was no chance, following the principles in Polkey, that the claimant would have been dismissed in any event if a proper process had been followed. Furthermore nor can I find that the claimant has contributed to his dismissal.
- I am going to uplift that by the maximum I am allowed of 25% for the breach of the ACAS Code by Mr John Chadwick when dismissing.
- Mr Hayward's misdemeanour, if one can call it that, was minor. A post on Facebook about the selling of meat to his girlfriend and the cost of that item or those items cannot constitute gross misconduct. He was not in breach of any social media policy.
Damages / Relief Type
- Compensatory award of £2,714.00
- Basic award of £2,177.00
- Reimbursement of tribunal fees of £1,200.00