Claimant v Bubblegum Balloons Limited

The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed on 31 March 2023, not 22 February 2023 as claimed. The dismissal was not for asserting a statutory right under s.104 ERA but for gross misconduct (refusing to return company laptop). The respondent was entitled to dismiss summarily for this repudiatory breach of contract.

Although the claimant had a 3-month notice period and was dismissed without notice, the tribunal found the respondent entitled to dismiss summarily because the claimant's refusal to return the company laptop constituted gross misconduct and a repudiatory breach of contract.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's account of the Christmas party incident. Video evidence showed Megan Robertson inadvertently said 'she' and 'sorry boys' when announcing an award winner, which was not discriminatory. The tribunal found the claimant's recollection of events inaccurate and that no discrimination occurred.

The tribunal found the claimant's recollection of the 'spoiler alert' comment at the awards ceremony was not accurate. Based on video evidence, the comment was not offensive or oppressive and did not, taking all circumstances into account, reasonably amount to harassment related to sex.

Even accepting the claimant made protected acts on 22 February 2023 (complaints about cleaning ladies toilets and the awards ceremony comment), the tribunal found these were not the reason for dismissal. The dismissal reasons pre-dated (alleged false information) and post-dated (laptop refusal) the protected acts. Contact with the claimant's uncle was part of investigation, not victimisation.

The claimant claimed notice pay and holiday pay. The notice pay claim failed because the respondent was entitled to dismiss summarily for gross misconduct. The tribunal did not make findings awarding any contractual payments.

The claimant claimed holiday pay. The tribunal dismissed all claims and made no award for holiday pay, finding the respondent entitled to dismiss summarily without payment in lieu of notice or other payments.

The tribunal made no findings supporting age discrimination. The claimant's age (25 at employment start) was noted but no evidence supported that age was a factor in any treatment or dismissal.