Cases8002132/2024

Claimant v Lidl Great Britain Limited

27 May 2025Before Employment Judge L DohertyScotlandhybrid

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found the dismissal fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. The employer had reasonable grounds to believe the claimant placed her hands around a colleague's throat, used aggressive language, and conducted a disciplinary meeting on the warehouse floor in breach of policy. The investigation was reasonable despite delay. Dismissal for placing hands around a colleague's throat, given the claimant's managerial position, fell within the band of reasonable responses.

Facts

Claimant, a Polish warehouse manager employed since 2017, was dismissed for gross misconduct. She was accused of placing her hands around a colleague's throat during a shift handover, using aggressive language including swearing at junior staff, and conducting a disciplinary meeting on the warehouse floor in breach of confidentiality policy. The claimant denied the physical contact allegation, saying she only shook the colleague's shoulders as a joke. She was suspended from 30 May to 13 September 2024 while investigations and disciplinary proceedings took place. She appealed unsuccessfully.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal fair. The employer reasonably believed the claimant guilty of the misconduct based on corroborated witness evidence, conducted a reasonable investigation despite delay (which was explained by holidays and sick leave), and dismissal for placing hands around a colleague's throat fell within the band of reasonable responses for a manager. The delay did not cause prejudice to the claimant's ability to respond to the allegations.

Practical note

An employer can reasonably accept corroborated witness evidence over an employee's denial of physical misconduct; procedural delay does not render dismissal unfair where explained by legitimate reasons and no prejudice results; dismissal for physical contact with a colleague's throat is within the reasonable range even for a previously good employee.

Legal authorities cited

Christou v London Borough of Haringey [2012] IRLRIceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1983] ICR 17BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379RSPCA v Cruden ICR 205A v B [2003] IRLR

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.94ERA 1996 s.98(4)ERA 1996 s.98

Case details

Case number
8002132/2024
Decision date
27 May 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Warehouse Department Manager
Salary band
£40,000–£50,000
Service
7 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No