Claimant v Seaton Hospitality Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent did not have reasonable grounds for its belief that the claimant was guilty of the allegations, and had not carried out a reasonable investigation by the time the decision to dismiss was formed. The claimant was not given a proper opportunity to respond to the evidence before dismissal was confirmed. The procedure was outside the band of reasonable responses and the dismissal was therefore unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996.
Withdrawn by claimant at the hearing.
Facts
The claimant was Head Chef at the Roker Hotel. On 10 March 2024, undercooked turkey was served to guests at a Mothers' Day carvery event. The turkey had been cooked by a relatively new chef, Anthony, working in a separate ballroom kitchen. The claimant had not informed Anthony about equipment issues with the oven, had not supervised him adequately, and had not ensured proper temperature checking before service. Following an investigation and disciplinary process conducted by an external HR consultant, the claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct on 3 April 2024.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the respondent did not carry out a reasonable investigation before reaching the decision to dismiss, and did not have reasonable grounds for the belief that all allegations were made out. The decision-maker had formed her view before the reconvened disciplinary hearing and did not give the claimant a proper opportunity to respond to the investigation findings. However, the tribunal found the claimant's conduct was culpable and reduced both awards by 60%.
Practical note
A disciplinary decision-maker must not reach a final decision before giving the employee a proper opportunity to review and respond to all investigation findings, even where serious misconduct appears evident.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 8.0 weeks' gross pay
Adjustments
The tribunal found the claimant neglected his duties by failing to properly brief and supervise a relatively new chef, such that undercooked turkey was served to guests. The claimant's conduct was culpable and blameworthy, contributing significantly to his dismissal. The basic award was reduced by 60% under s.122(2) ERA and the compensatory award by 60% under s.123(6) ERA.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2501858/2024
- Decision date
- 5 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Head Chef
- Salary band
- £30,000–£40,000
- Service
- 19 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister