Claimant v Apple Retail UK Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant withdrew his claim of automatic unfair dismissal under section 152 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 at the hearing. The tribunal dismissed the claim on withdrawal with the claimant's consent.
The tribunal found the dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses. The investigation was seriously flawed, particularly regarding allegation two. The dismissing officer relied on a non-existent 'zero tolerance policy', failed to properly identify policy breaches, and incorrectly concluded both comments were discriminatory. There were no reasonable grounds for concluding the first allegation amounted to harassment or bullying when no complainant was offended, and the second comment was potentially a protected act (reporting possible positive discrimination) which was not considered at all.
Facts
The claimant, employed by Apple Retail UK as a 'Genius' for over 12 years with an unblemished record, was dismissed for two alleged incidents of misconduct. On 13 December 2022, he made an inappropriate joke to a Chinese colleague referencing disease, which she did not find offensive. On 16 December 2022, he repeated a colleague's account that adding Jamaican heritage to a CV had led to success after initial rejection. Neither incident resulted in a complaint from the person directly addressed. The investigation was seriously flawed, particularly confusing the dates and facts of the second allegation, and the dismissing officer applied a non-existent 'zero tolerance policy' rather than the actual harassment and bullying policies.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. The investigation was inadequate, particularly for the second allegation where the claimant was never properly asked about the actual incident. The dismissing officer had no reasonable grounds to conclude either comment was discriminatory, harassment, or bullying. The first comment, while inappropriate, did not offend anyone present. The second comment was potentially a protected act (reporting possible positive discrimination) which was never considered. The officer relied on a non-existent zero tolerance policy and failed to properly apply the actual policies or understand discrimination law.
Practical note
Employers must base disciplinary decisions on actual written policies, not assumed 'zero tolerance' approaches, and must properly investigate whether comments that might appear discriminatory could actually be protected acts under the Equality Act, particularly when an employee is reporting potential discrimination in recruitment processes.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2209500/2023
- Decision date
- 30 May 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Genius
- Service
- 12 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister