Adjustments Intelligence

Tribunal found a proper investigation involving claimant's input would probably have taken about six months. There was a 33% chance the claimant's conduct regarding failure to obtain OFSI licences and leases for Regency Court and Queen's Gate Terrace would have been found sufficiently negligent and/or in breach of fiduciary duty to warrant dismissal had a fair procedure been adopted.

25% reduction applied to compensatory award reflecting the chance that a fair dismissal procedure may have resulted in dismissal

Tribunal found claimant would have been dismissed in any event had a fair procedure been followed, given the egregious nature of the comments (suicide bomber, racial and sexual harassment) which amounted to unlawful harassment under the Equality Act 2010. Dismissal would have occurred by the same date.

The tribunal found that if the respondent had acted fairly, they would have discovered the claimant had twice breached confidentiality rules but found no basis for allegations of dishonesty or collusion. A fair procedure would have taken a further four weeks, after which there was a 75% chance the respondent would have fairly dismissed the claimant. The claimant had some mitigation based on the circumstances he found himself in.

Claimant's dismissal by reason of redundancy was inevitable. A fair consultation would have taken a further two weeks. Financial loss limited to two weeks net pay plus pension, but notice pay already received resulted in zero financial loss apart from loss of statutory rights.

2/3rds chance that a fair-minded independent appeal panel, taking note that the claimant was a disabled person, would have given the claimant a further 3 months to return to work, bearing in mind his 20 years' service

60% chance the claimant would still have been dismissed even with a fair procedure, taking into account allegations of breach of confidentiality and possible bad-mouthing of management. The tribunal considered this dismissal, if conducted fairly following a proper investigation, would have been within the range of reasonable responses.

There was a 25% chance the Claimant could have been fairly dismissed for misconduct, as the result of a further finding of misconduct during the currency of a live final written warning. A fair process was unlikely to uphold failure to follow reasonable instruction or find gross misconduct, but might have found misconduct based on witness evidence about the manner in which he spoke to Miss Paine.

Even with a fair process, Mr Joo would have been dismissed. Any fair investigation would have concluded Mr Joo committed serious misconduct (ceasing work and threatening employer) about which he was unrepentant. In those circumstances Mr Chung would have reached the same conclusion. There was no real likelihood the situation could have been deescalated. 100% Polkey reduction applied to compensatory award.

25% reduction to losses September-December 2024 reflecting chance the claimant would have resigned before start of term even with interim arrangements in place. 50% reduction to losses from January 2025 reflecting chance she would have resigned after receiving grievance outcome in December 2024.

The claimant's blameworthy conduct (making inappropriate and sexist comments about a female casualty) contributed significantly to his dismissal. He was not largely to blame (which would be 75%), nor were the parties equally at fault (50%). The tribunal considered 65% just and equitable, applying to both basic and compensatory awards.

Tribunal assessed claimant's contribution to his dismissal as the same as the Polkey reduction - 33% - based on conduct relating to OFSI licences and potential favouring of his sons' company.

The tribunal stated that even if the dismissal had been found unfair (which it was not), the claimant's conduct was culpable and blameworthy: she took cocaine the night before her shift, mixing it with alcohol, in breach of safety policy. She refused the drug test believing she would test positive. The tribunal concluded she caused the dismissal and a 100% deduction to both basic and compensatory awards for contributory conduct would be just and equitable.

20% reduction applied to past and future loss of earnings, pension loss, mileage and loss of statutory rights totalling £5,964.30

Claimant's conduct was blameworthy despite workplace banter culture. He had been warned 9 months earlier that not everyone likes such banter and that the language was unacceptable. He nonetheless made extremely serious comments including racial, sexual and religious harassment.

The claimants' failure to report the conduct of prisoner B in the appropriate manner timeously contributed to the disciplinary proceedings taken against them. A contemporaneous record would have been available had they followed the correct procedure.

The claimant caused or contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct and it is just and equitable to reduce the compensatory award by 40%

The claimant caused or contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct and it was just and equitable to reduce both the compensatory award and basic award by 10%

The Claimant spoke to Miss Paine in a forthright, robust, challenging and confrontational manner. Though the incident was caused in larger part by Miss Paine's failure to account for his health conditions, his approach was unreasonable and partly causative of how the incident unfolded. By taking a less robust approach he might have explained his health limitations and deescalated the dispute.

25% reduction applied to basic award balancing two factors: Mr Joo had committed extremely serious misconduct (threats and refusal to work) which directly led to dismissal; but respondent had also behaved fundamentally unfairly. The tribunal also noted it would have applied 100% contributory fault to compensatory award if not already reduced to nil by Polkey.

Respondent failed to follow any disciplinary process before dismissing for alleged gross misconduct. Email of 06 May 2025 stated no investigation or disciplinary meeting was necessary. Even though respondent claimed an internal review occurred post-dismissal, there was no written evidence and claimant was not informed or invited to participate.

Respondent unreasonably failed to comply with ACAS Code—claimant submitted grievance on 7 June 2024 but after 17 months by November 2025 hearing, whilst investigation meetings had occurred, no decision had been reached. Tribunal found 10% uplift just and equitable.

Respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015. Uplift applied to both unauthorised deduction award (£55.20) and discrimination compensation (£3,312.50 total).

Respondent failed to abide by the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, resulting in a 25% uplift to the unfair dismissal award

The respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015

ACAS uplift of 20% applied to compensatory award

The respondent unreasonably failed to follow ACAS Code paragraph 9 by not providing full information about all disciplinary charges for which the claimant was ultimately dismissed. The claimant was dismissed for matters not formally put to him in the disciplinary notification. 10% uplift applied to compensatory award.

Respondent failed to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Matters. A 25% uplift was applied to the notice pay and compensatory award.

Unreasonable delay in grievance process. Colleague Ms Begg did not receive partial outcome until 2 December 2024, seven and a half months after raising grievance. Claimant did not receive report until July 2025, fifteen months after raising grievance. No adequate explanation provided for delay.

Respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015

The claimant refused to attend an appeal, denying the respondent the opportunity to remedy defects in the disciplinary process. This was an unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code

Respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015. Claimant unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code by not appealing the decision to dismiss her.

The Claimant unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. It was just and equitable to reduce the compensatory award by 10%

The claimant unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015, resulting in a 15% reduction in the notice pay award under s 207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

The respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015. The claimant also unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code

The claimant failed to engage with the ACAS code for grievances and it was just and equitable to make a 25% reduction to the compensatory award