Claimant v MYCITYDEAL Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair due to significant failures: the respondent conflated investigation and disciplinary roles, failed to provide the claimant with an opportunity to respond to additional calls relied upon in the decision, breached its own 48-hour notice requirement, and failed to hold an appeal hearing as required by its disciplinary procedure and ACAS Code. While the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct, the procedural failings meant the dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses.
The tribunal found the claimant's actions constituted gross misconduct (deliberately inflating call times and making derogatory comments about the employer). This amounted to a fundamental breach of contract entitling the respondent to summarily dismiss without notice. The respondent was therefore justified in not paying notice pay.
Facts
Claimant was a Senior Merchant Development Consultant with nearly 14 years unblemished service and strong performance. Respondent discovered she made repeated calls to one merchant between October 2023 and March 2024, remaining on hold without selecting options to artificially inflate her call time against a 60-minute daily KPI. Audio recordings also captured her making derogatory comments about the company and admitting to a colleague she was inflating call times. She was dismissed for gross misconduct on 27 March 2024 following a disciplinary hearing held 48 hours after notification.
Decision
Tribunal found unfair dismissal due to serious procedural failings: no proper investigation, disciplinary chair also investigated, claimant not given opportunity to respond to additional evidence relied upon, less than 48 hours notice given, and no appeal hearing held despite procedure requiring one. However, conduct amounted to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal, so breach of contract claim failed. Awards heavily reduced for 80% contributory conduct and 80% Polkey, with 10% ACAS uplift.
Practical note
Even where gross misconduct is admitted, significant procedural failures (conflating investigation/disciplinary roles, relying on evidence not put to employee, breaching own procedures on notice and appeals) will render dismissal unfair, though compensation may be minimal after Polkey and contributory conduct reductions.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 2.7 weeks' gross pay
Adjustments
Tribunal found it highly likely the claimant would have been dismissed if fair procedure followed, but assessed a 20% chance that appeal could have resulted in final written warning instead given her long service and high performance
Claimant admitted deliberately inflating call times to artificially increase performance against KPI and making derogatory comments about employer. She was recorded explaining to a colleague what she was doing. Conduct was blameworthy and contributed to dismissal.
Respondent unreasonably failed to comply with ACAS Code by not providing claimant opportunity to respond to additional calls relied upon at disciplinary and failing to hold appeal hearing as required by Code and own disciplinary procedure
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3201428/2024
- Decision date
- 14 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- MYCITYDEAL Ltd
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Merchant Development Consultant
- Salary band
- £60,000–£80,000
- Service
- 14 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor