Claimant v Next Distribution Limited

The respondent admitted at the hearing that the claimant was entitled to additional holiday pay of £334.40. The tribunal ordered payment of this sum less statutory deductions.

The tribunal found the claimant's conduct on 18 October 2023 amounted to misconduct but not gross misconduct. His behaviour, while difficult and obstructive, did not disclose a deliberate intention to disregard essential contract requirements nor amount to a fundamental breach. Therefore the claimant was entitled to one week's notice pay.

The tribunal accepted Ms Camplin's evidence that the reason for dismissal was the claimant's inappropriate and intimidating behaviour on 18 October 2023 and his refusal to attend a probationary review meeting. The protected disclosures made on 17 and 18 October were not the reason or principal reason for dismissal. The employer encouraged health and safety reporting and the claimant had previously raised concerns without adverse consequences.

While some of the alleged detrimental acts occurred (being asked to attend probation review, being followed to cab, lack of detail about suspension), the tribunal found these were not done on the ground of protected disclosures. The decision to conduct a probationary review was taken on 3 October, before the disclosures. The other actions resulted from concerns about the claimant's behaviour on 18 October, not the protected disclosures.

The tribunal found that of the seven alleged detriments, some did not occur (no security officer staring, no assault, no false imprisonment, no deception) and those that did occur (probation review request, being followed to cab, lack of detail about suspension) were not done on the ground that the claimant made protected disclosures but rather due to concerns about his behaviour.

The deduction of £332 in December 2023 was lawful as it recovered an advance payment made in November 2023 for the same hours worked. The claimant received all sums he was entitled to and was not paid twice for the same period.

The tribunal found no breach of contract. The CCTV policy was non-contractual. The respondent did provide evidence, witness statements and CCTV footage to the claimant before the disciplinary hearing. While it would have been good practice to explicitly inform the claimant the suspension meeting was being recorded, this was not a contractual breach, and the claimant was aware recordings were being made.