Claimant v Pladis (UK) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal was fair. The employer had a genuine belief in misconduct (the claimant slapped a woman's bottom on stage at a public event while representing the company), had reasonable grounds for that belief following a reasonable investigation, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses for gross misconduct that violated the company's Code of Conduct and Dignity at Work policy and brought the company into potential disrepute.
The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to 7 days pay in lieu of accrued but untaken leave, which had been credited on his final payslip. Although the claimant disputed this and claimed he was owed 5 additional days, he provided no evidence to support his claim. The tribunal accepted the respondent's calculations and found no unpaid holiday pay was owed.
Facts
The claimant was Head of Health, Safety, Environment and Security for a food manufacturing company. On 7 June 2024, while collecting an award on behalf of the company at an industry event attended by several hundred people, he slapped a female presenter on the bottom on stage. A colleague was upset by the incident and reported it. The claimant claimed the presenter had consented ('go for it'), but acknowledged in hindsight the behaviour was unacceptable. He was dismissed for gross misconduct for violating the company's Code of Conduct and Dignity at Work policy and bringing the company into potential disrepute.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was fair. The investigation was reasonable, the employer had a genuine belief in misconduct on reasonable grounds, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The allegation was sufficiently clear throughout the process. The claimant's claim for holiday pay also failed as the tribunal found he had been paid for accrued but untaken leave on his final payslip.
Practical note
Senior employees representing their employer at public industry events can be fairly dismissed for gross misconduct even where the person subjected to inappropriate physical conduct consented, if the behaviour violated workplace policies and brought the company into potential disrepute.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2225466/2024
- Decision date
- 14 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Head of Health, Safety, Environment and Security
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No