Claimant v Maidenhead Aquatics Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that although the investigation into the alcohol allegations was fundamentally flawed and fell outside the band of reasonable responses, the dismissal was fair based on the admitted rota change without authorisation. The claimant admitted changing the rota without permission which caused incorrect payroll processing. The tribunal concluded the respondent genuinely believed in misconduct, had reasonable grounds after a fair investigation, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses for this serious breach.
Facts
The claimant was employed from August 2016, becoming a store manager in April 2021. When his branch closed in September 2023, he was transferred to another store as a sales assistant (a demotion) but retained his manager salary. Soon after, allegations emerged including: changing the rota without permission causing payroll errors, being under the influence of alcohol, rudeness to customers, persistent lateness, and taking excessive breaks. Following investigation and disciplinary hearings, he was dismissed for gross misconduct on 19 October 2023. He admitted changing the rota but denied the alcohol and other allegations.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal fair. Although the investigation into the alcohol allegations was fundamentally flawed and fell outside the band of reasonable responses, the tribunal concluded that the finding of gross misconduct based on the admitted unauthorised rota change was reasonable. The respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, reasonable grounds after adequate investigation of this allegation, and dismissal for causing incorrect payroll processing was within the range of reasonable responses. The claim failed.
Practical note
A dismissal can be fair overall even where parts of the investigation are seriously defective, if one admitted allegation alone (here, unauthorised rota changes causing payroll errors) is sufficiently serious to justify summary dismissal within the range of reasonable responses.
Adjustments
Judge indicated that if the dismissal had been found unfair, a 100% reduction would have been applied for contributory fault due to the claimant's conduct in changing the rota without authorisation
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2400352/2024
- Decision date
- 9 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Sales Assistant (formerly Store Manager)
- Service
- 7 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No