Claimant v A Slice of Life Café Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent failed to prove misconduct or gross misconduct. The tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence over the respondent's, finding that the claimant was not aggressive or insubordinate on 22 or 28 March 2024. The respondent's evidence was inconsistent and uncorroborated, while the claimant's account was supported by witness Miss Fay. The respondent failed to discharge its burden of proving the reason for dismissal.
The tribunal found that under the Apprenticeship Agreement, the claimant was contractually entitled to be paid for 32 hours per week regardless of whether the respondent provided work. The respondent had made unauthorised deductions by failing to pay the claimant for contractual hours. On reconsideration, the tribunal extended this finding to include weeks when the business was entirely closed, awarding an additional £352.00 gross.
Facts
The claimant was an apprentice at the respondent's café, contracted to work 32 hours per week at £5.50 per hour under an Apprenticeship Agreement. The respondent dismissed the claimant on 28 March 2024 for alleged gross misconduct, citing aggression and insubordination on 22 and 28 March 2024. The claimant alleged unfair dismissal and unauthorised deductions from wages. A witness, Miss Fay, corroborated the claimant's version of events.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed as the respondent failed to prove misconduct. The tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence, finding he was not aggressive or insubordinate. The tribunal also found the respondent had made unauthorised wage deductions by failing to pay for contractual hours, including during periods when the café was closed. The respondent's reconsideration application was dismissed, but the tribunal awarded an additional £352.00 gross on reconsideration.
Practical note
An employer seeking to rely on misconduct as the reason for dismissal must prove it on the evidence; inconsistent employer evidence and credible employee witnesses can defeat a misconduct allegation, making dismissal automatically unfair.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 1400722/2024
- Decision date
- 24 March 2025
- Hearing type
- reconsideration
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Apprentice
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep