Claimant v South Normanton Community Interests Company
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent breached the implied term of trust and confidence through: the manner of conducting a heavy-handed disciplinary process, including categorising the allegations as gross misconduct despite no intention to dismiss; denying the claimant her chosen companion (her husband, a work colleague); expanding the disciplinary charges to include 'allowing her husband to interfere'; and insufficient provision of evidence prior to hearings. The cumulative effect of these actions, done without reasonable and proper cause, constituted a fundamental breach of contract which the claimant accepted by resigning. The dismissal was also found substantively unfair.
Facts
The claimant was a part-time bar person for 10 years at a community venue. She had previously been spoken to informally about her brusque manner with colleagues and customers. In July 2023, complaints were made about her behaviour during two shifts: alleged rudeness to customers at a bingo night, participation in a cash prize game she was running, and alleged micromanaging and bullying of colleagues. The employer invoked a formal disciplinary procedure alleging gross misconduct potentially leading to dismissal. The claimant was denied her choice of companion (her husband, a director and work colleague), witness statements were not provided in advance, and no investigation meeting was held. She was issued a final written warning (reduced on appeal to a written warning) and punished for 'allowing her husband to interfere'. She resigned citing constructive dismissal.
Decision
The tribunal found the respondent breached the implied term of trust and confidence by conducting a heavy-handed disciplinary process without reasonable and proper cause. Key breaches included: deliberately using the threat of dismissal as a shock tactic with no intention to dismiss; denying the claimant her chosen companion; expanding disciplinary charges to include matters not put to her; and inadequate provision of evidence. The cumulative effect constituted a fundamental breach. The dismissal was constructively unfair. Compensation was awarded but reduced by 50% for the claimant's contributory conduct (her brusque manner and improper participation in the cash game) and limited to 16 weeks due to failure to mitigate.
Practical note
An employer using a disciplinary procedure as a 'shock tactic' without proportionate cause or proper process risks breaching the implied term of trust and confidence, especially when denying the employee's choice of companion entitled under policy and expanding allegations without notice, even where the underlying conduct concerns have some merit.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 17.7 weeks' gross pay
Adjustments
The tribunal made a 50% reduction under s.122(2) and s.123(6) ERA 1996 to reflect the claimant's culpable and blameworthy conduct: her brusque demeanour with colleagues and customers (which she had been spoken to about previously), and her participation in the cash prize 'open the box' game which she recognised could be improper. This conduct caused or contributed to the disciplinary process which led to the constructive dismissal.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2600447/2024
- Decision date
- 17 September 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Bar person
- Salary band
- Under £15,000
- Service
- 10 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep