Claimant v Falcon Tower Crane Services Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that while the respondent believed the claimant was guilty of misconduct (operating a damaged crane), the respondent did not have reasonable grounds for that belief and failed to carry out a reasonable investigation. The respondent formed conclusions based on conjecture and hypothesis without putting these to the claimant or investigating alternative explanations. The investigation was substantively and procedurally flawed.
Facts
Claimant, an experienced crane operator with nearly 20 years' service, operated a crane on 27-28 November 2023. On 27 November, damage occurred to the crane jib when the claimant engaged the park radius device at the end of the day. The following day, during the third lift, the crane jib collapsed, injuring the claimant who developed PTSD. The respondent concluded the claimant had knowingly operated the damaged crane on 28 November without reporting it. After a disciplinary process in which the respondent relied on unsubstantiated 'verbal confirmation' that witnesses saw the damage and refused to provide documents to the claimant in advance, he was summarily dismissed in August 2024.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. While the respondent genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of misconduct, it did not have reasonable grounds for that belief and failed to carry out a reasonable investigation. The respondent's conclusions were based on conjecture and hypothesis never put to the claimant. No investigation was undertaken into matters supporting the claimant's position. The tribunal awarded basic award of £18,550 and compensatory award of £10,665.68 (notice pay and loss of statutory rights only, as the claimant would have been unable to work due to PTSD from the accident itself).
Practical note
Employers must base dismissal decisions on reasonable investigation and evidence, not conjecture; failing to explore alternative explanations, put theories to the employee, or investigate matters supporting the employee's case will render a misconduct dismissal unfair even where the employer genuinely believes the employee is guilty.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000107/2025
- Decision date
- 24 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Crane operator
- Service
- 20 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor