Claimant v Martin McColl Limited

The tribunal found the respondent failed to properly investigate the claimant's explanation that she had been told the procedure was allowed, failed to investigate training given, and failed to interview the line manager or other employees. The investigation was wholly inadequate. The decision to treat the conduct as gross misconduct and dismiss fell outside the band of reasonable responses. The claimant had a clean disciplinary record and the misconduct did not involve theft, dishonesty or loss to the company.

The tribunal found the claimant's breach was not a repudiatory breach of contract. The respondent's disciplinary policy stated breach of till policy 'may' result in dismissal, not that any breach constituted gross misconduct. The claimant's conduct was not serious and wilful or grossly negligent. Summary dismissal was therefore wrongful and the claimant was entitled to notice.

The tribunal found no evidence that the decision to suspend or dismiss was because of race. The tribunal preferred the respondent's witnesses and found many of the claimant's allegations were not established on the facts. The four in-time allegations all failed. There was no continuing act to link out-of-time allegations. The tribunal declined to extend time as there was no good reason claims were not brought sooner and greater prejudice to the respondent.

The harassment allegations were the same as the direct discrimination allegations. The tribunal found the conduct alleged was not established on the facts, particularly rejecting allegations against Ms Covington whom the tribunal found credible. The tribunal found the claimant often misinterpreted facts and reached conclusions of discrimination with little or no evidence. The claims were also out of time and no just and equitable extension was granted.