Cases2400482/2024

Claimant v Booker Limited

14 October 2024Before Employment Judge ShergillManchesterremote video

Outcome

Claimant succeeds

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the dismissal unfair despite the admitted misconduct. The respondent failed to carry out a reasonable investigation, failed to weigh up significant mitigating factors including the claimant's seven-year exemplary record, and failed to consider the toxic workplace culture where managers were complicit in inappropriate banter and standards were not enforced. The investigation had material flaws including failure to resolve factual disputes about when the claimant could have apologised and what was said in an informal meeting with a manager. The tribunal concluded no reasonable employer would have dismissed in these circumstances, and a written warning would have been within the band of reasonable responses for at least some employers.

Facts

The claimant, a driver/trainer with seven years' exemplary service, was dismissed for gross misconduct after using offensive language ('fucking mong') directed at a female colleague during an office discussion about weight loss on 26 July 2023. The incident occurred in a dysfunctional office environment characterised by widespread inappropriate banter, pranks, and poor enforcement of workplace standards by managers who were themselves complicit in the unprofessional culture. The claimant apologised when he first saw the colleague after her two-week absence, but the respondent viewed this as too late. The tribunal heard extensive evidence of a toxic workplace culture where dignity at work policies were not enforced, managers participated in inappropriate behaviour including name-calling, and training was ineffective.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally and substantively unfair. While the respondent had a potentially fair reason (the offensive language constituted misconduct), the investigation was inadequate with multiple material failings: failure to resolve factual disputes about the apology timeline, failure to re-interview key witnesses, inadequate consideration of the toxic workplace culture and lack of prior enforcement, insufficient weight given to seven years' exemplary service, and treating admitted procedural failings as external to the process. The tribunal concluded no reasonable employer would have dismissed in these circumstances given the context, and a written warning would have been within the band of reasonable responses.

Practical note

Employers with dysfunctional workplace cultures where standards are not consistently enforced create a 'false sense of security' and risk unfair dismissal findings if they suddenly dismiss an employee with an exemplary record for isolated misconduct without fully investigating the cultural context and properly weighing mitigation.

Legal authorities cited

Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111W Devis and Sons Ltd v Atkins [1977] ICR 662Foley v Post Office and Midland Bank plc v Madden [2000] IRLR 82Salford Royal NHS Trust v Roldan [2010] EWCA Civ 522London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small [2009] EWCA Civ 220Orr v Milton Keynes Council [2011] ICR 704Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55CRO Ports London Ltd v Wiltshire EAT 0344/14West Midlands Co-Op Ltd v Tipton [1986] ICR 192Quadrant Catering Ltd v Smith EAT 0362/2010East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Sanders EAT 0319/15Post Office v Fennell [1981] IRLR 221Paul v East Surrey District Health Authority [1995] IRLR 305BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1983] ICR 17

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.98(2)(b)ERA 1996 s.98

Case details

Case number
2400482/2024
Decision date
14 October 2024
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
driver/trainer
Service
8 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No