Claimant v OCS Security Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair because the respondent failed to interview the claimant's line manager (Mr Stride) formally at any stage despite him being the only significant witness and despite the claimant saying the agreement had been verbal. No reasonable employer would have failed to interview Mr Stride and explore the possibility of genuine misunderstanding given the wholly informal homeworking arrangements. This made the investigation inadequate under the Burchell test.
Facts
Claimant was Deputy Security Manager at QEII Conference Centre since December 2017. He had informal arrangement with his line manager Mr Stride to work from home occasionally, usually one day per week, agreed verbally and recorded only by calendar invite. In August 2023, claimant worked from his parents' home in Cornwall from 14-17 August. He said this had been agreed with Mr Stride; Mr Stride said it had been discussed but not agreed. Claimant missed meetings and did not respond to manager's emails during this period. After investigation, claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
Decision
Tribunal found dismissal procedurally unfair because the respondent failed to formally interview Mr Stride despite him being the only significant witness and the claimant saying the agreement had been verbal. No reasonable employer would have failed to explore the possibility of genuine misunderstanding given the informal homeworking arrangements. Compensatory award subject to: 50% Polkey reduction; 20% ACAS uplift for procedural failures; 25% contributory fault reduction (tribunal found claimant did not actually work while in Cornwall). Basic award reduced 25% for conduct prior to dismissal.
Practical note
Employers conducting misconduct investigations must formally interview key witnesses even where the employee cannot provide written evidence of verbal agreements, especially where informal arrangements existed and genuine misunderstanding is possible.
Adjustments
50% chance the claimant would have been dismissed even if Mr Stride had been formally interviewed, as employer might still have been sceptical and concluded claimant was not working while in Cornwall
Claimant failed to respond to manager's queries while in Cornwall and tribunal found he did not do any work in that period. This was culpable conduct contributing to dismissal. Reduction limited to 25% because 50% already deducted for Polkey
Respondent breached ACAS Code by: (1) disciplinary invitation letter not containing sufficient detail of allegations; (2) unreasonable 7.5 month delay in hearing appeal (28 September 2023 appeal letter to 17 May 2024 outcome)
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2202013/2024
- Decision date
- 20 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Deputy Security Manager
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister