Claimant v Twenty-Four Seven Recruitment Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the investigation fell outside the bands of how a reasonable employer would conduct the disciplinary process. The claimant was not asked for her account before the disciplinary hearing, hearsay evidence was relied upon heavily, and the appeal sought to justify the decision already made rather than consider it afresh. These failures rendered the dismissal unfair.
The tribunal accepted the claimant's account that she did not use the word 'fucking' and that although she may have committed some misconduct by not following proper procedure, this did not amount to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal. Other sanctions such as a warning and relocation would have been more appropriate.
Facts
The claimant, a Regional Manager with 7 years' continuous service (17-18 years total experience), was dismissed for gross misconduct following an alleged incident on 26 October 2023 where she was accused of swearing at a client (Poundland) in an open office. The respondent relied heavily on hearsay evidence from Mr Sullivan who reported what the client Mr Banner had allegedly said. The claimant's account was not sought before the disciplinary hearing, and her emails responding to new evidence were lost due to IT security issues. The appeal did not remedy these procedural defects.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the investigation fell outside the band of reasonable responses. The claimant was not asked for her account before the disciplinary hearing, hearsay evidence was prioritised, and the appeal did not provide a fresh consideration. The tribunal also found the conduct did not amount to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal. Awards totalling £12,321.73 were made with 15% contributory fault reduction, 15% Polkey reduction, and 15% ACAS uplift applied.
Practical note
An employer must obtain the employee's account before proceeding to a disciplinary hearing, particularly when relying on hearsay evidence from third parties; failure to do so, even if corrected later, may render the dismissal unfair if the appeal does not genuinely reconsider the matter afresh.
Award breakdown
Adjustments
15% Polkey reduction applied to compensatory award to reflect possibility of fair dismissal
Claimant admitted she did not follow proper procedures by speaking to the client directly rather than following the correct escalation process
15% ACAS uplift awarded to reflect the fact that ACAS procedures were not followed correctly by the respondent
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3201123/2024
- Decision date
- 28 November 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Regional Manager for the South East region
- Service
- 7 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister