Claimant v Ansador Limited

The tribunal found the dismissal unfair on multiple procedural grounds: allegations not clearly outlined, insufficient evidence provided in advance, inadequate time to prepare, investigation fell outside range of reasonable investigations, decision made prior to process, and valid appeal points dismissed without appeal hearing. The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was the claimant's absence and manner of communication during sick leave coupled with project issues discovered during absence and lingering suspicions about his limited company, not the reasons formally stated.

The tribunal found the claimant was not guilty of gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal. While the sending of an inauthentic letter to a client could have been gross misconduct, the respondent had chosen to issue only a final written warning. The actions following that warning did not amount to gross misconduct. The claimant was therefore entitled to notice pay.

The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant for days in February when he was fit to return to work (£1,584.60). The tribunal also found the respondent had deducted £6.86 too much for Barclaycard expenses. However, the tribunal noted the respondent was owed £3,466.51 for legitimate personal expenses and parking fines, creating a complex offsetting situation to be resolved at remedy hearing. The tribunal made no immediate order on sums to be paid pending further submissions on whether offsetting was permissible under s25 ERA 1996.

The claim related to unpaid mileage and unspecified expenses of £500. The tribunal found no evidence of these expenses or any mileage claim to be considered. The tribunal understood both parties were treating these as sums to be offset against vehicle charging costs rather than sums outstanding to be paid to the claimant. The tribunal indicated this could be addressed at the remedy hearing if the understanding was incorrect.