Claimant v Assist Security (Retail) Limited

The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair. The disciplinary process was flawed, including inadequate investigation, lack of impartiality, and the principal reason for dismissal (conduct) was not fairly established. However, a 100% Polkey reduction and 100% contributory conduct reduction were applied due to the claimants' blameworthy conduct including uplifting staff pay rates and receiving diverted payments.

The tribunal found that the claimants' conduct (uplifting Dior staff pay rates and receiving diverted payments via VLA Connect Ltd) amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract entitling the respondent to dismiss summarily without notice.

All allegations of race discrimination failed. The tribunal found no evidence that the First Claimant's race (or the Second Claimant's association with his race) was the reason for any of the alleged treatment. The reason for the adverse treatment was the respondent's belief that the claimants had been diverting money and planning to leave and divert business, not race.

The tribunal did not find that Mr. Hewitt said 'Antonio is black, no one will believe him.' The comment 'if Antonio thinks he is a gangster, I know some gangsters myself' was found to have been said but was not related to race and was said in jest in response to Mr. Zayik, not with the purpose or effect of violating dignity.

Three allegations were withdrawn. The remaining two failed: the First Claimant's claim for 10% commission was unspecified and unproven, and the Second Claimant's claim for £902.80 December wages was unsupported by evidence.

The tribunal found no failure to provide written particulars as the claimants likely had contracts from their previous employer (Sursec) which transferred under TUPE. Even if not, exceptional circumstances (the claimants ran the business and could have issued themselves contracts) made an award unjust.