Claimant v UK Plumbing Supplies Ltd (t/a Plumco)
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal both procedurally and substantively unfair. The investigation was inadequate as the dismissing manager did not view CCTV footage before deciding, key allegations were not put to the claimant, and the respondent failed to properly investigate the claimant's assertion that he had been provoked and had complained about Mr Hobson previously. Neither decision maker considered alternatives to dismissal, the claimant's 15+ years' service, clean record, or remorse. The decision to dismiss fell outside the range of reasonable responses given the brief, isolated nature of the incident, significant provocation, and the much harsher treatment compared to Mr Hobson who received at most an informal warning.
The claimant was entitled to 12 weeks' notice but was dismissed without notice or payment in lieu. While grabbing a colleague can in some cases constitute gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal, here the incident was very brief, a 'moment of madness' for which the claimant apologised immediately, and resulted from significant provocation by Mr Hobson both on the day and previously. No formal action was taken against Mr Hobson. The claimant's conduct did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract entitling the respondent to terminate without notice.
Facts
The claimant worked for over 15 years as Warehouse/Transport Manager. Following a TUPE transfer in May 2023, tensions arose with sales team member Jack Hobson who repeatedly spoke to the claimant rudely and told him to 'fuck off' in front of customers and colleagues. Managers took no effective action despite complaints. On 2 September 2023, after Hobson again told the claimant to 'fuck off' and 'stop being a dickhead', the claimant briefly grabbed Hobson and pushed him before colleagues separated them. The incident lasted seconds, was captured on CCTV, and the two resumed working together immediately. The claimant apologised at the start of the investigation but was dismissed for gross misconduct on 10 October 2023 without notice after a flawed disciplinary process.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal both procedurally and substantively unfair. The investigation was inadequate because the dismissing manager never viewed the CCTV footage, key allegations forming the rationale for dismissal were never put to the claimant, and the respondent failed to properly investigate provocation and prior complaints. Neither decision maker considered alternatives to dismissal, the claimant's 15+ years' service, clean disciplinary record, or remorse. Dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses. The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded as the brief, provoked incident did not constitute gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal. Awards reduced by 35% for contributory fault.
Practical note
Even where an employee commits an act of workplace violence, dismissal may be unfair if the employer fails to properly investigate provocation and context, does not view key evidence like CCTV, introduces new allegations without putting them to the employee, and gives no weight to long service, clean record and remorse.
Adjustments
The claimant's conduct on 2 September 2023 in physically grabbing Mr Hobson was culpable and blameworthy, not acceptable workplace behaviour, and caused the dismissal. However, the claimant was not equally to blame given significant employer failings including no formal action against Mr Hobson who was viewed as equally to blame, failure to investigate previous complaints, and procedural unfairness. The 35% reduction reflects that the claimant was more than slightly but less than equally to blame.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1800990/2024
- Decision date
- 11 December 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Warehouse/Transport Manager
- Salary band
- £30,000–£40,000
- Service
- 15 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No