Claimant v Allied Vehicles Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the investigation was inadequate and did not reasonably explore the claimant's explanation that he was unaware of his colleague's theft. The respondent failed to investigate whether the claimant had a conversation with the colleague or whether stopping at cars was unusual. The claimant was not provided with CCTV evidence in advance, and the true allegation (failure to report theft) was not made clear in the disciplinary process. The decision to dismiss fell outside the band of reasonable responses.
The claimant was summarily dismissed without notice pay. Because the dismissal was found to be unfair, the respondent was not entitled to summarily dismiss him, and the claimant is therefore entitled to five weeks' statutory notice pay.
The claimant sought payment for annual leave he would have accrued had he remained employed for the remainder of the leave year. The tribunal held that an employee is only entitled to accrued but untaken leave at the date of dismissal, not leave that would have accrued if employment had continued.
Facts
The claimant was a yard coordinator employed for over five years. He was dismissed for gross misconduct after being present in a van when a colleague, Mr McAuley, collected free fruit provided by the employer and placed one box in his personal car. The respondent believed the claimant witnessed this theft and dishonestly failed to report it. The claimant maintained he was unaware of Mr McAuley's actions as he was on his phone and not paying attention, and that stopping at vehicles during work journeys was not unusual.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the investigation was inadequate. The respondent failed to investigate the claimant's explanation that he was unaware of the theft, did not ascertain whether a conversation occurred between the claimant and colleague, and did not provide CCTV evidence to the claimant before the disciplinary hearing. The tribunal also found the true allegation—failure to report theft—was not made clear to the claimant. The compensatory award was uplifted by 15% for breach of the ACAS Code.
Practical note
Employers must conduct even-handed investigations that explore the employee's explanation, provide all central evidence (including CCTV) before disciplinary hearings, and clearly articulate the specific allegation, especially when the conduct alleged amounts to gross misconduct.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 18.6 weeks' gross pay
Adjustments
Respondent failed to adequately inform claimant of allegations, failed to provide CCTV evidence, and failed to carry out necessary investigation. Failures were inadvertent but concerning given size of employer and HR resources. 15% uplift applied to compensatory award.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4106638/2024
- Decision date
- 1 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Yard coordinator
- Salary band
- £30,000–£40,000
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No