Cases3200663/2021

Claimant v Off Broadway Limited

3 September 2024Before Employment Judge MoorEast Londonremote video

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair. The employer failed to conduct a reasonable investigation — did not speak to employees present before dismissing them, did not check till receipts, and dismissed without giving the claimant an opportunity to state his case before the decision was made. The offer of a meeting after dismissal did not cure these fundamental defects, especially given the employer's closed mind expressed in the dismissal letter. However, the tribunal found an 80% Polkey reduction and significant contribution reductions applied.

Wrongful Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct. He was the designated premises supervisor and was supervising the bar during two serious breaches of Covid-19 curfew rules on 28 October and 4 November 2020. On 28 October drinks were sold after the 10pm curfew; on 4 November customers remained in the bar until at least 10.25pm. This conduct was a fundamental breach of trust justifying summary dismissal, especially given the public health context, risk of fines, and lack of remorse.

Breach of Contractfailed

The wrongful dismissal claim (notice pay claim) failed because the tribunal found the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct which entitled the respondent to dismiss without notice.

Holiday Paypartly succeeded

The claimant succeeded in recovering accrued but untaken holiday pay for 3 days from the 2020/21 leave year. The claim to carry over holiday from 2019/20 failed because the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to take holiday during that year — he was master of his own timetable as manager, and even during Covid restrictions there were sufficient opportunities to take leave or arrange temporary cover.

Facts

The claimant was bar manager of Off Broadway bar from October 2018 until his summary dismissal on 8 November 2020. The respondent dismissed him for gross misconduct after discovering via CCTV that the bar had breached Covid-19 curfew rules requiring closure by 10pm. On 28 October 2020 drinks were sold after 10pm; on 4 November 2020 customers remained in the bar until at least 10.25pm. The claimant was the designated premises supervisor and was present on both occasions. The respondent dismissed all staff present without first speaking to them or holding a disciplinary meeting, though offered a meeting afterwards.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair due to lack of investigation and failure to give the claimant an opportunity to respond before dismissal. However, the wrongful dismissal claim failed because the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal. Awards were subject to 80% Polkey reduction, 75% contribution reduction to basic award, 50% to compensatory award, and 20% ACAS uplift. The claimant also failed to mitigate, limiting loss to 30 September 2021. Holiday pay for 3 days was awarded.

Practical note

Even clear misconduct does not excuse procedurally unfair dismissal: employers must investigate and give employees an opportunity to respond before making dismissal decisions, and an offer of a meeting after dismissal with a closed mind does not cure fundamental procedural defects.

Adjustments

Polkey reduction80%

80% chance this employer would have fairly dismissed the claimant after a proper procedure. The tribunal found that on the evidence (including CCTV, till receipts, and witness statements), it was highly likely the employer would reasonably have concluded the claimant was guilty of serious misconduct and dismissed him. Only a 20% chance an apology and mitigation could have saved the employment.

Contributory fault75%

75% reduction to basic award for blameworthy conduct: managing bar in breach of curfew on 28 October (selling drinks after 10pm) and being in effective supervision on 4 November (allowing customers to remain until at least 10.25pm). 50% reduction to compensatory award (lower to avoid double-counting with Polkey and because dismissal only attributed to 4 November conduct, plus some mitigation).

ACAS uplift+20%

Respondent failed to comply with ACAS Code paragraphs 5 (reasonable investigation), 9 (informing of allegations), 12 (holding meeting before decision, allowing employee to state case), and 4 (doing so before decision made). These failures were unreasonable. 20% uplift awarded. No reduction for claimant's failure to appeal because dismissal letter showed closed mind.

Legal authorities cited

BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379A v B [2003] IRLR 405Taylor v OCS Group Limited [2006] IRLR 613LB of Hammersmith and Fulham v Keable (EA-2019-000733-DA)Post Office v Fennell [1981] IRLR 221Newbound v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2015] IRLR 734Max Planck Gesellschaft v Shimizu (ECJ C-684/16)Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1983] ICR 17Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.123(6)ERA 1996 s.212ERA 1996 s.1ERA 1996 s.98Employment Act 2002 s.38Working Time Regulations 1996 reg.14Working Time (Coronavirus)(Amendment) Regulations 2020ERA 1996 s.122(2)

Case details

Case number
3200663/2021
Decision date
3 September 2024
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
hospitality
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Bar Manager
Salary band
£30,000–£40,000
Service
2 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister