Claimant v Paisley Indoor Bowling Club plc
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent dismissed the claimant for reasons relating to her conduct. However, the respondent failed to carry out a reasonable investigation before deciding to dismiss at the board meeting on 2 March 2020. The respondent did not act in a procedurally fair manner: the claimant was not notified in writing of the problem, no disciplinary meeting was held before the decision to dismiss, and no appeal was offered. Even allowing for the respondent's lack of HR resources and small size, the investigation and procedure did not fall within the range of reasonable responses.
The claimant was contractually entitled to 12 weeks' notice but was given only 15 days. However, the tribunal found that, viewed objectively, the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct constituting a repudiatory breach of contract. The respondent was entitled at common law to dismiss without notice and accept the breach, terminating the contract immediately. The wrongful dismissal claim therefore failed.
The claimant claimed she was owed 11 days' accrued untaken holiday pay on termination. The tribunal found the annual leave year ran from 1 January to 31 December (not September to August as the claimant contended). The claimant had accrued 6 days' leave in 2020 and had taken 6 days, leaving no accrued untaken leave outstanding at termination. The claim for unauthorised deductions in respect of holiday pay therefore failed.
The claimant withdrew this claim (relating to alleged deductions referable to March 2020) during the hearing on 1 April 2025. It was dismissed under Rule 51 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024.
Facts
The claimant was Club Manager, Secretary and Treasurer for Paisley Indoor Bowling Club plc from 1999 to March 2020, with cash handling and financial responsibilities. From 2019, the new Chair Helen Dobson developed concerns about the claimant's working hours, transparency over finances, and resistance to oversight. On 19 February 2020 a confrontational meeting took place about insurance and invoices; the claimant stormed out saying she would not return. The respondent purported to accept her resignation but the claimant continued to attend and both parties treated the employment as continuing. On 2 March 2020 the board decided to terminate her employment with effect from 18 March 2020. During her garden leave, serious concerns emerged about the claimant's conduct including a cheque for £1,500 with an apparently forged signature, incorrect computer passwords, withholding of keys and documents, and unauthorised payments.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed because the respondent failed to carry out a reasonable investigation or follow a fair procedure before deciding to dismiss on 2 March 2020, despite concerns about her conduct. However, both the basic award (calculated at £11,069.10) and compensatory award were reduced to zero because the claimant's egregious misconduct (including financial irregularities, withholding information, and breaches of trust) made it just and equitable to do so. The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct entitling the respondent to dismiss without notice. The holiday pay claim also failed.
Practical note
Even where an employer unfairly dismisses without proper investigation or procedure, both basic and compensatory awards can be reduced to zero under sections 122(2) and 123(6) ERA 1996 where the employee's culpable conduct (including serious breaches of trust in a finance role) is so egregious that it is just and equitable to make no award.
Adjustments
The tribunal found that even if the claimant had not been unfairly dismissed on 18 March 2020, she would have been fairly dismissed for gross misconduct by 18 May 2020 (two months later) following a reasonable investigation and fair procedure. This limited the compensatory award to two months' loss before a 100% reduction for contributory fault was applied.
The tribunal found the claimant guilty of highly culpable conduct before dismissal which caused or contributed to the dismissal, including: paying herself in lieu of a public holiday she did not work; providing incorrect passwords; becoming defensive and aggressive when matters were raised; writing a cheque to herself for £1,500 with a forged second signature; withholding company property; refusing to provide bank passwords; and processing unauthorised payments during garden leave. Both the basic award and compensatory award were reduced to zero on grounds it was just and equitable to do so given the egregious nature of the misconduct and fundamental breach of trust.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4102998/2020
- Decision date
- 23 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- charity
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Club Manager, Secretary and Treasurer
- Salary band
- £20,000–£25,000
- Service
- 21 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No