Claimant v Wooden and Steel Ship Repairs Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found there was no justification for summary dismissal. The claimant's work on the Somerset, while inadequate, was not so grave and weighty as to justify summary dismissal, and in any event the respondent had affirmed the contract by allowing him to continue working for 6 weeks. The claimant was not planning to fabricate a personal injury claim; his conversation with a colleague was innocent. He was therefore entitled to one month's contractual notice.
Facts
The claimant worked as a general skills worker for a ship repair company for 4 months. He was dismissed for poor performance on 27 February 2024 with one month's notice, but the next day the respondent summarily dismissed him without working his notice after overhearing a conversation the respondent believed indicated the claimant was planning to fabricate a personal injury claim. The respondent paid one week's gross pay (£585) but not the full month's notice. The claimant brought a wrongful dismissal claim.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was wrongfully dismissed. His work errors were not so grave as to justify summary dismissal, and in any event the respondent had affirmed the contract by allowing him to continue working for 6 weeks after the most serious incident. The conversation the respondent overheard was innocent and did not indicate any intention to fabricate a claim. The claimant was awarded damages of £1,755 (one month's notice less the week already paid), with a 10% ACAS uplift for the respondent's failure to follow a proper grievance procedure, totalling £1,750.
Practical note
An employer who discovers performance issues but allows an employee to continue working affirms the contract and cannot later rely on those issues as justification for summary dismissal; genuine but mistaken belief that an employee plans wrongdoing does not objectively constitute repudiatory breach.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 4.5 weeks' gross pay
Adjustments
Respondent unreasonably failed to comply with ACAS Code by not having a grievance process in place, not conducting a meeting with the claimant regarding his grievance, and not giving him the opportunity to appeal against the grievance decision. 10% uplift awarded as just and equitable.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6003240/2024
- Decision date
- 7 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- No
- Rep type
- in house
Employment details
- Role
- General skills worker
- Salary band
- £20,000–£25,000
- Service
- 4 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No