Claimant v Boohoo.com UK Limited

The tribunal found the dismissal substantively unfair. While the respondent had reasonable grounds for believing the claimant had taken and stored the chewing gum, it did not have reasonable grounds for concluding this amounted to gross misconduct or theft. The investigation was inadequate because the respondent took no steps to investigate the claimant's defence that eating the chewing gum was common practice, including amongst team leaders and managers. The decision to dismiss fell outside the range of reasonable responses as the claimant genuinely believed his conduct was permitted, had not been told it was wrong, and had seen managers doing the same thing.

The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to three weeks' notice under his contract and s.86 ERA 1996. His conduct did not amount to a serious breach of his obligations or gross misconduct entitling the respondent to dismiss without notice. In storing the chewing gum to share with colleagues, the claimant was acting in a manner he believed was common practice and authorised. His conduct did not demonstrate a deliberate intention to disregard essential requirements of his contract or undermine trust and confidence.

The tribunal found the claimant had not discharged the first stage burden of proof under s.136 Equality Act 2010. There was nothing beyond a difference in treatment and a difference in race. There was no mention of race in the documentary evidence and nothing from which the tribunal could draw an adverse inference that race was the reason for dismissal. The workforce was international, and two Romanian former colleagues were not subject to disciplinary action.