Claimant v William Hill Organization Limited

The tribunal found the investigation was inadequate. Key failures included: the respondent failed to obtain CCTV evidence from the bar despite its availability; the investigation was focused on proving guilt rather than also seeking exculpatory evidence as required in serious misconduct cases per Miller v William Hill; and the dismissing officer had insufficient reasonable grounds, based on limited witness statements, brief notes, no timeline or location analysis, and only one witness to the alleged finger-in-mouth incident who was himself heavily intoxicated.

The tribunal concluded that Mr Tobin did not commit the act of gross misconduct alleged. The police statement confirmed that CCTV covering the entire area showed no incident occurred and no reactions from others suggesting anything happened. Therefore the respondent was not entitled to terminate without notice.

There was no evidence that the requirements of business for employees to carry out work of Mr Tobin's kind had ceased or diminished. Mr Tobin was replaced. The dismissal was for alleged misconduct, not redundancy.

The respondent was in breach of contract in failing to pay the claimant's notice pay, as the tribunal found no gross misconduct had occurred and summary dismissal was therefore not justified.

Holiday pay was claimed in the pleadings but the judgment states remedy will be determined at a future hearing. No determination was made at this liability hearing.