Claimant v Reiser (UK) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was performance concerns decided by the Advisory Board on 3 March 2023, not the gross misconduct alleged. There was no genuine belief in misconduct, no reasonable investigation (Mr Hewitt conducted none at all), and the procedure was egregiously unfair. The claimant was not informed of the case against him, was misled about evidence, and Mr Hewitt acted as both investigator and decision-maker. The dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses.
The respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct. The tribunal found the real reason for dismissal was performance concerns, not conduct. Given the grossly unfair disciplinary procedure and lack of proper investigation, the respondent did not establish actual guilt of the gross misconduct alleged.
This claim was not determined at the liability hearing. The tribunal directed that it be addressed at the remedy hearing, where it will be confirmed whether the claimant is pursuing it and how the claim is put.
Facts
The claimant worked as Territory Sales Manager from June 2018 to March 2023 with an exemplary record and no previous disciplinary issues. On 3 March 2023, the respondent's Advisory Board decided to dismiss him over performance concerns. Six days later, he was invited to a disciplinary hearing for alleged gross misconduct. Mr Hewitt, who conducted the hearing, carried out no investigation but relied entirely on his undocumented recollections of past verbal complaints. The claimant was given no details of the allegations against him. He was dismissed on 21 March 2023. The appeal, conducted by Mr Watson (who had been present at the 3 March Board meeting), involved interviewing 11 people post-dismissal, but the notes were not disclosed to the claimant. The appeal upheld the dismissal.
Decision
The tribunal found both unfair and wrongful dismissal. The real reason for dismissal was performance concerns decided by the Board on 3 March 2023, not the gross misconduct alleged. There was no investigation, no genuine belief in misconduct, and the procedure was egregiously unfair. The claimant was not told the case against him, was misled about evidence, and Mr Hewitt acted as both investigator and decision-maker. No Polkey reduction or contributory fault finding was made. The case proceeds to a remedy hearing.
Practical note
A tribunal will find dismissal unfair where the stated reason (misconduct) differs from the real reason (performance), where no investigation is conducted and the decision-maker relies on undocumented recollections, and where the employee is never properly informed of the case against them — even if post-dismissal interviews might appear to provide some support for the employer's position.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1602120/2023
- Decision date
- 29 September 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Territory Sales Manager
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister