Cases8002097/2024

Claimant v North Ayrshire and Arran Constituency Labour Club

28 May 2025Before Employment Judge E MannionScotlandin person

Outcome

Claimant succeeds£9,500

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair. There was no investigation into the allegations, the claimant was not informed of the allegations or given an opportunity to respond, no disciplinary hearing was held, and no appeal was offered. The respondent did not have reasonable grounds to believe the claimant was guilty of misconduct and the decision to dismiss did not fall within the band of reasonable responses.

Automatic Unfair Dismissalfailed

While the claimant made four protected disclosures relating to GDPR compliance and data protection breaches, and the respondent accepted these were protected disclosures, the tribunal found insufficient evidence that the disclosures were the principal or dominant reason for dismissal. The disclosures may have been a factor for some committee members but were not the main reason for dismissal.

Wrongful Dismissalsucceeded

The respondent summarily dismissed the claimant for alleged gross misconduct without notice. Since the tribunal found the respondent did not have a reasonable basis to find the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct, they had no legal basis to dismiss without notice. The claimant was therefore entitled to her contractual notice pay of one month.

Facts

The claimant was employed as bar manager of a not-for-profit Labour club from October 2022 to October 2024. She made four protected disclosures regarding GDPR breaches. On 3 October 2024, she reviewed CCTV footage after a member complained their drink had been tampered with, which the claimant viewed as a potential criminal matter. A committee member's wife complained about this in a letter. Without any investigation or hearing, the respondent's committee voted 10-2 to dismiss the claimant for gross misconduct relating to a GDPR breach. She was summarily dismissed on 11 October 2024.

Decision

The tribunal found the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims succeeded but the automatic unfair dismissal claim failed. The dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair: no investigation occurred, the claimant was not given a hearing, and there was no appeal. The respondent did not have reasonable grounds to believe gross misconduct occurred. Total compensation of £9,500.21 was awarded including a 25% ACAS uplift for egregious breaches of the Code.

Practical note

Even small volunteer-run organisations with access to external HR advice cannot dismiss employees without following basic procedural fairness requirements including investigation, hearing, and appeal rights, and wholesale departure from the ACAS Code will attract maximum uplift.

Award breakdown

Basic award£1,060
Compensatory award£6,144
Notice pay£2,296
Pension loss£386
Loss of statutory rights£500

Award equivalent: 17.9 weeks' gross pay

Adjustments

ACAS uplift+25%

The tribunal found a total and wholescale breach of the ACAS Code of Practice. The respondent failed to investigate, failed to put allegations to the claimant, failed to hold a disciplinary hearing, failed to inform the claimant of her right to appeal, and failed to hold an appeal when requested. The tribunal considered this the most egregious breach possible and applied the maximum 25% uplift.

Legal authorities cited

BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379British Leyland (UK) Ltd v Swift [1981] IRLR 91Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson [1974] ICR 323Secretary of State for Employment v John Woodrow and Sons (Builders) Ltd [1983] ICR 582Norton Tool Ltd v Tewson [1972] ICR 501Steen v ASP Packaging Ltd [2014] ICR 56Nelson v BBC (No.2) [1980] ICR 110Fyfe v Scientific Furnishings Limited [1989] ICR 648Cooper Contracting Ltd v Lindsey [2016] ICR D3Kuehne and Nagel Ltd v Cosgrove EAT 0165/13Lawless v Print Plus EAT 0333/09Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.123Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.207A(2)ERA 1996 s.94(1)ERA 1996 s.98ERA 1996 s.98(4)ERA 1996 s.103AERA 1996 s.119

Case details

Case number
8002097/2024
Decision date
28 May 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
hospitality
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Employment details

Role
Bar manager
Salary band
£25,000–£30,000
Service
2 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep