Claimant v Coca-Cola Europacific Partners Great Britain Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair. The tribunal concluded the claimant's actions on 8 November 2023 (negligently entering incorrect data and failing to complete core tasks) did not amount to gross misconduct or repudiatory conduct going to the root of the contract. The dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses, particularly given the claimant's mitigation (low mood following an allegation against him) and that the respondent's own policy indicated a warning was warranted. Procedurally, the dismissal was unfair because the dismissing officer took into account matters that were not part of the charges, failed to disclose she had spoken to the claimant's senior manager who gave negative feedback, and did not properly deal with Allegation 3.
Facts
The claimant worked as a Merchandiser for Coca-Cola after transferring from a Sales Representative role. On 6 November 2023, he was counselled about giving 'unwanted attention' to a female colleague, which upset him greatly. On 7 November 2023, he contacted the Employee Assistance Programme reporting low mood, lack of motivation, and fleeting thoughts of self-harm. On 8 November 2023, his line manager conducted an unannounced customer review of three stores he had visited, finding he had incorrectly entered data into the Red1 system, failed to replenish stock properly, and left areas untidy. On 1 December 2023, he was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct (dishonesty/negligence in entering data, failing to complete core tasks, and poor time management).
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair both substantively and procedurally. Substantively, the claimant's errors on one day did not amount to gross misconduct or repudiatory conduct justifying summary dismissal; the respondent's own policy indicated a warning was appropriate. Procedurally, the dismissing officer improperly took into account matters not part of the charges (prior complaint, Account Executive's earlier feedback, undisclosed conversation with senior manager), and failed to properly deal with Allegation 3. The tribunal found no chance of fair dismissal even with fair procedure, but reduced compensation by 10% for contributory fault as the claimant's performance did fall below acceptable standards on the day in question.
Practical note
Employers must not dress up performance issues or isolated poor performance as gross misconduct; dismissal must be for conduct that is truly repudiatory and goes to the root of the contract, and decision-makers must not take into account uncharged matters or undisclosed evidence.
Adjustments
The claimant's work standards on 8 November 2023 fell below what was reasonably expected at three stores. However, the tribunal accepted his mitigation that his mental health had been affected by a meeting on 6 November 2023. The blameworthy conduct was not serious and only contributed to dismissal to a small extent, justifying a 10% reduction to the compensatory award.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3304512/2024
- Decision date
- 17 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Merchandiser
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No