Claimant v Croft Design Studio Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent dismissed the claimant for conduct (sexual harassment and intimidation), which was a potentially fair reason. However, the dismissal was unfair because the respondent failed to carry out a reasonable investigation, did not invite the claimant to a disciplinary hearing, gave him no opportunity to respond to the allegations, and did not follow the company's own disciplinary procedure or ACAS Code. The dismissal fell outside the band of reasonable responses. No fair appeal process was offered.
The age discrimination claim was withdrawn by the claimant.
Facts
The claimant worked as a picture framer for a small company for over 8 years. On 17 March 2024 he visited a female colleague's home early on a Sunday morning, propositioned her for sex and demanded a kiss. The colleague did not report the incident due to the claimant's social connection to the director. On 19 April 2024 the claimant resigned verbally giving 4 weeks' notice. On 23 April he attempted to withdraw his resignation and behaved aggressively towards the director whilst in possession of a large bladed knife. The respondent dismissed him on 15 May 2024 for gross misconduct (sexual harassment and intimidation) without any investigation, disciplinary hearing or appeal.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair as the respondent conducted no proper investigation, held no disciplinary hearing, and gave the claimant no opportunity to respond to serious allegations. However, the claimant had validly resigned on 19 April with 4 weeks' notice, so his employment would have ended on 17 May anyway (100% Polkey reduction). Additionally, the tribunal found the claimant guilty of extremely serious gross misconduct (sexual harassment and workplace intimidation with a weapon) and reduced both basic and compensatory awards by 100% to nil as the dismissal was entirely of the claimant's making.
Practical note
Even where a dismissal is procedurally unfair, tribunals may reduce compensation to zero where the employee's gross misconduct was so serious that it entirely caused the dismissal and a Polkey reduction applies because employment would have ended anyway.
Adjustments
The claimant had resigned on 19 April 2024 giving 4 weeks' notice, and his employment would have ended on 17 May 2024 in any event, regardless of any fair procedure. He attempted to withdraw his resignation on 23 April but the respondent did not accept the withdrawal.
The tribunal found the claimant guilty of extremely serious gross misconduct: sexual harassment of a female colleague at her home on 17 March 2024 (propositioning her for sex and demanding a kiss) and aggressive, intimidating behaviour towards the director on 23 April 2024 whilst in possession of a large bladed knife in the workplace. The tribunal concluded the dismissal was entirely of the claimant's making and reduced both basic and compensatory awards by 100% to nil as just and equitable.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6007139/2024
- Decision date
- 26 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- in house
Employment details
- Role
- picture framer
- Service
- 9 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister