Cases1600353/2025

Claimant v Oscar Mayer Ltd

5 August 2025Before Employment Judge T. Vincent RyanMoldin person

Outcome

Claimant succeeds

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the investigation was not fair and reasonable, conducted by a conflicted investigator (MSJ) against whom the claimant had an outstanding grievance. The disciplining and appeals officers had an unreasonable belief in the claimant's guilt based on assumptions rather than proper evidence. No consideration was given to mitigating circumstances including 27 years of unblemished service. The dismissal did not fall within the band of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer.

Facts

The claimant, an Engineering Storeman with 27 years unblemished service, was in a redundancy pool and had filed a grievance against Mr MSJ alleging he had predetermined the redundancy outcome. On 13 August 2024, while listening to Irish music, the claimant repeatedly said 'top of the morning to ya' in a mock Irish accent to a manager, Mr Millward, who was escorting an external auditor with auburn/red hair. The claimant denied seeing the auditor. MSJ was appointed to investigate an allegation of racial harassment against the auditor. The claimant was summarily dismissed four days before his 27th anniversary, losing his redundancy package.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. The investigation was fundamentally flawed: MSJ was conflicted due to the outstanding grievance against him, he led witnesses (particularly the auditor), and the investigation was based on assumptions rather than evidence. Neither the disciplining officer nor appeals officer gave proper consideration to the claimant's defence or mitigating circumstances including 27 years unblemished service. However, a 15% reduction for contributory fault was applied due to the claimant's insubordinate and blameworthy conduct in goading Mr Millward.

Practical note

An employer cannot conduct a fair investigation or disciplinary process using an investigator who is the subject of an outstanding grievance by the employee, regardless of how serious the alleged misconduct, and must always consider mitigating circumstances including long service before imposing the ultimate sanction of dismissal.

Adjustments

Contributory fault15%

Claimant's conduct towards Mr Millward was blameworthy - adopting mock accents in a mocking way, goading and trying to embarrass a manager. This was insubordination though not racial harassment. Claimant also dishonestly minimised the repetition of the phrase.

Legal authorities cited

Secretary of State for Justice v Lown [2016] IRLR 22Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1983] ICR 17Steen v ASP Packaging Ltd [2014] ICR 56 EAT

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.98(2)(b)ERA 1996 s.123ERA 1996 s.122ERA 1996 s.98(4)ERA 1996 s.94ERA 1996 s.98

Case details

Case number
1600353/2025
Decision date
5 August 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
manufacturing
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Engineering Storeman
Service
27 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister