Claimant v Felt Products (Northern) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent did not genuinely believe the claimant was guilty of misconduct. Stuart Oldfield did not instruct the claimant to refuse orders from Joule Trade Limited, and became concerned only after Worldpay communications. His sole aim was to recoup losses from the claimant through salary reduction. The Burchell test was not satisfied, there was no proper investigation, and the dismissal fell outside the band of reasonable responses.
The claimant was summarily dismissed without notice or payment in lieu. The tribunal found the claimant followed correct procedures in accepting orders and was not guilty of gross misconduct. His conduct did not constitute a repudiatory breach of contract, and the respondent was not entitled to dismiss without notice. The dismissal without notice was therefore unlawful.
Facts
Claimant worked as sales manager for small building materials supplier from October 2017 to May 2023 on £45,000 plus commission. In March 2023 he took six telephone orders totalling £31,400 from new customer Joule Trade Ltd, following usual payment procedures and keeping managing director Stuart Oldfield informed. In April 2023 Worldpay informed respondent the transactions were fraudulent. Claimant was suspended on 29 April. At aggressive meeting on 2 May, Stuart Oldfield offered claimant demotion with salary cut to £30,000 to repay fraud losses. Claimant refused after taking legal advice and was summarily dismissed on 5 May 2023.
Decision
Tribunal found claimant unfairly and wrongfully dismissed. Respondent failed to establish potentially fair reason for dismissal. Stuart Oldfield did not genuinely believe claimant guilty of misconduct - he never instructed claimant to refuse orders and only became concerned after Worldpay communications. His aim was to recoup losses through salary reduction. Even if there was potentially fair reason, dismissal was procedurally unfair with extensive ACAS Code breaches: no investigation, no proper disciplinary process, aggressive meeting with no opportunity for claimant to defend himself. Dismissal outside band of reasonable responses. No Polkey reduction or contributory fault found.
Practical note
A small employer's lack of knowledge of employment law and treating staff 'like family' does not excuse fundamental procedural failures; an aggressive, confrontational approach to a disciplinary meeting where the dismissing officer is also a key witness and the employee is given no real opportunity to respond will render a dismissal unfair even where fraud has occurred.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2409596/2023
- Decision date
- 2 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- sales manager
- Salary band
- £40,000–£50,000
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister