Claimant v Berryworld Limited t/a Prepworld (Level 5)
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the employer had a genuine belief in the claimant's culpability based on his repeated admissions that he punched the machine in frustration, causing it to break. The belief was held on reasonable grounds following a proper investigation. Despite minor procedural issues (not showing CCTV footage before the disciplinary meeting), the overall process was fair and dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses, particularly given the final written warning already in place. Even if the process had been unfair, the claimant would have been dismissed anyway based on his admissions.
Facts
The claimant was a machine operator employed since 2014. On 22 February 2023, frustrated by a malfunctioning printer, he struck the machine's screen, breaking it. He had previously received a final written warning in November 2022 for absences. At investigation and disciplinary meetings, he repeatedly admitted punching the screen out of frustration, stating he knew it was wrong. He was summarily dismissed (with one week's notice pay) after a 13-minute disciplinary meeting. His appeal was rejected. At tribunal, he changed his account and claimed meeting notes were fabricated, but the tribunal preferred the respondent's witnesses.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. The employer had a genuine belief in the claimant's guilt based on his repeated admissions during the disciplinary process. Although there were minor procedural flaws (not showing CCTV before the disciplinary hearing), these made no difference as the claimant had already admitted the conduct. Damaging equipment in this way constituted gross misconduct, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses, particularly given the existing final written warning. Even if the process had been unfair, the claimant would have been dismissed anyway.
Practical note
Where an employee makes clear and repeated admissions of misconduct during a disciplinary process, minor procedural irregularities will rarely render a dismissal unfair, particularly when combined with a live final written warning for unrelated matters.
Adjustments
Tribunal found 100% chance claimant would have been dismissed in any event based on what he admitted having done, even if there had been procedural failings
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2302758/2023
- Decision date
- 1 March 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- agriculture
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Machine Operator
- Service
- 9 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister