Claimant v St. Budeaux Community Bar CIC
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair due to: (1) no notes of witness interviews provided to the claimant; (2) claimant not given opportunity to respond to evidence gathered after the disciplinary hearing; (3) Ms. Thompson's inappropriate involvement in the dismissal decision when she was a witness to one of the allegations; (4) exclusion of the claimant's partner as a witness while accepting evidence from the complainant's partner; (5) failure to interview named witnesses to the 4 August incident. The tribunal concluded that these failures, taken collectively, placed the process outside the range of reasonable responses.
Facts
The claimant was employed as bar manager of a small community interest company bar. On 24 July 2023, she was involved in a physical altercation with a customer, Helen Lacock; parties disputed who started the fight. On 4 August 2023, she had a disagreement with director Ms. Thompson over stocking decisions. After investigations, she was summarily dismissed on 11 September 2023 for gross misconduct relating to both incidents. The respondent had spoken to witnesses who said the claimant started the fight, but provided no written notes of these interviews to the claimant. The claimant covertly recorded the disciplinary hearing.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair due to serious procedural failures: no witness interview notes provided; Ms. Thompson (a witness to one allegation) participated in the dismissal decision; the claimant's partner excluded as witness while the complainant's partner was interviewed; and the claimant was not given opportunity to respond to evidence gathered after the disciplinary hearing. However, applying Polkey, the tribunal found the claimant would have been fairly dismissed two weeks later if proper procedures had been followed.
Practical note
Even where an employer has reasonable grounds to believe misconduct occurred, serious procedural failures—particularly lack of documentation, failure to disclose witness evidence, and involvement of a conflicted decision-maker—will render a dismissal unfair, though a substantial Polkey deduction may apply if fair dismissal was inevitable.
Adjustments
Tribunal found claimant would have been fairly dismissed two weeks after the actual dismissal date if proper procedures had been followed. The tribunal was satisfied that Mr. Luscombe would have dismissed even without Ms. Thompson's involvement, and that providing documentation to the claimant would not have altered the outcome as her account had already been discounted.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1405763/2023
- Decision date
- 7 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Bar Manager
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister