Claimant v MS Cleaning Services Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. However, the tribunal applied a 100% Polkey reduction, finding the claimant would have been fairly dismissed within 2 weeks in any event. The claimant's conduct also contributed to the dismissal, leading to an 80% reduction in both awards.
Facts
Mrs Christian was employed by MS Cleaning Services Ltd and was dismissed. The dismissal was found to be procedurally unfair as the respondent failed to follow the ACAS Code on disciplinary procedures. However, the claimant also failed to comply with the ACAS Code and engaged in blameworthy conduct that contributed to her dismissal.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair but applied a 100% Polkey reduction as the claimant would have been fairly dismissed within 2 weeks anyway. An 80% contributory fault reduction was applied to both basic and compensatory awards. The tribunal also applied both a 15% ACAS uplift (for the respondent's failure) and a 15% ACAS reduction (for the claimant's failure), resulting in minimal compensation of £567.43 in total.
Practical note
Even where a dismissal is procedurally unfair, substantial reductions through Polkey and contributory fault can result in minimal compensation, particularly where both parties have failed to follow proper procedures and the claimant's conduct significantly contributed to the dismissal.
Award breakdown
Adjustments
100% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event within 2 weeks of the effective date of termination
The claimant caused or contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct
The respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015. The claimant also unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code
The respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015. The claimant also unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6010994/2024
- Decision date
- 5 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- in house
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No