Claimant v Ling Design Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct on 26 April 2024 (aggressive outburst, swearing, threatening to punch the CEO, banging on desk) and had reasonable grounds for that belief after a reasonable investigation. Despite the claimant's long service, his failure to take responsibility for his actions and his indication the behaviour could be repeated meant dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. The claimant's conduct breached the dignity at work policy and disciplinary policy.
The tribunal found that while the claimant's conduct on 26 April 2024 was serious, it did not wholly undermine the trust and confidence between employer and employee to justify summary dismissal. Previous similar outbursts by the claimant had resulted only in a first written warning (which had expired), indicating the behaviour was not so significantly different as to constitute gross misconduct warranting dismissal without notice. The claimant was therefore entitled to his three months' notice pay.
Facts
The claimant, a production manager with nearly 24 years' service, had a deteriorating relationship with the CEO following a change in company ownership in 2015 and disputes over COVID-19 protocols in 2020. He had received informal warnings and one formal written warning in January 2022 (expired) for inappropriate tone and aggressive behaviour in meetings and emails. On 26 April 2024, he had a significant outburst in the open-plan office involving swearing, shouting, banging on a desk, threatening to punch the CEO, and entering his line manager's office aggressively. He was suspended and dismissed for gross misconduct on 10 May 2024 without notice.
Decision
The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim failed because the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses given his failure to take responsibility and indication the behaviour could recur. However, the wrongful dismissal claim succeeded because the conduct did not wholly undermine trust and confidence to the extent that justified summary dismissal, given previous similar (though less severe) outbursts had resulted only in written warnings. The claimant was entitled to three months' notice pay.
Practical note
An employer can fairly dismiss for a heat-of-the-moment aggressive outburst where the employee fails to take responsibility and indicates recurrence is likely, but summary dismissal requires conduct so fundamentally destructive of trust that it differs significantly in degree from previous tolerated misconduct.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6005037/2024
- Decision date
- 13 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Production Manager
- Service
- 24 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No