Cases3304574/2024

Claimant v Morrison Data Services Limited

25 September 2025Before Employment Judge L WilsonWatfordin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct, a potentially fair reason. The respondent conducted a thorough investigation and disciplinary process. The claimant's conduct included failure to handover work, misleading occupational health about medical conditions, conducting unauthorized group meetings in breach of policy, and failures in performance and management. Dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.

Facts

The claimant was a Field Delivery Manager with 20 years' service managing teams of meter readers. Following a 6-month sickness absence, he returned to work but had repeatedly failed in his performance and management duties. He conducted unauthorized group meetings when individual one-to-ones were required, failed to handover work before annual leave causing staff not to be paid, and misled occupational health about medical conditions. He was placed on performance improvement plans on multiple occasions. Following investigation and disciplinary process, he was dismissed for gross misconduct in January 2024.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal was for gross misconduct, a potentially fair reason. The respondent conducted a thorough investigation and disciplinary process over many months, pausing during the claimant's sickness absence. The claimant's conduct breached multiple company policies on safety, attendance, relationships with employees, and general conduct. Dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses for a reasonable employer. The claim of unfair dismissal failed.

Practical note

A thorough investigation and disciplinary process, even if lengthy, can justify dismissal for gross misconduct where there are multiple serious failings in performance and conduct, especially breaches of trust and confidence such as misleading the employer and occupational health.

Legal authorities cited

Whitbread plc v Hall [2001] EWCA Civ 268Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1983] ICR 17Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.113(4)Employment Rights Act 1996 s.119-126Employment Rights Act 1996 s.123(6)Employment Rights Act 1996 s.122(2)Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98

Case details

Case number
3304574/2024
Decision date
25 September 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Field Delivery Manager
Service
20 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No