Frustrated manager’s decision leads to unfair dismissal
An employer lost an unfair dismissal case after summarily sacking an employee rather than go through a fair procedure.
London Central Employment Tribunal found in favour of the unfair dismissal claim against plant and pet retailer, M G Seven by delivery driver, Andrew Harris.
In his judgement, Employment Judge Adkin cut Harris’s compensation award because he failed to talk to his bosses.
Nonetheless, he increased one aspect of Harris’ award because the retailer did not use a fair process to sack him.
The employment tribunal heard that M G Seven director, Alex Sagar, expected a response from Harris after 1 April 2020 when he threatened to sack him.
When he heard nothing, he assumed he had resigned and sent him a P45 by WhatsApp a month later.
Unfair dismissal
The background to the unfair dismissal involved the closing of the central London shop after 23 March 2020 due to the covid lockdown. Harris’ refused to do any deliveries because of an injury due to an accident with a van.
Sagar still wanted Harris to do ‘contactless deliveries’ because the shop was still busy despite lockdown. He disbelieved Harris’ injury explanation.
The tribunal heard that Sagar was frustrated with Harris due to his failure to communicate but also due to two van accidents he was involved in over two years. One of the accidents led to a £5,000 insurance claim.
Employment law advice
Nonetheless, in his written judgement, Employment Judge Adkin stated that a dismissal process at minimum should have included a warning about sacking, a meeting where the sacking could be challenged and an appeal.
He stated: ‘…the Respondent failed to provide any basic process for considering dismissal in this case. Simply sending the Claimant a P45 was not any sort of process. It did not give him the opportunity to explain what was going on nor to put forward any mitigating circumstances as to the reason for absence.’
He also concluded that Andrew Harris had not resigned and his failure to communicate was not exceptionally bad conduct.
Photo: Akshay Gupta
Related News Stories
An advanced mental health practitioner was recently awarded over £60,000 after he was sacked without a fair process. An employment…
The CBI has been rocked by accusations of rape and sexual misconduct. With its reputation in tatters, members leaving by…
Swearing at work was ruled acceptable by one employment tribunal judge, while another gave out £71,000 in compensation when a…
Government agency bosses used a flawed procedure when firing a top foreign envoy for a sexual harassment accusation. The British…
Employers risk making poor and costly decisions in response to employees asking to work from their homes. Two cases have…
A judge slapped down an employer who failed to follow a fair procedure when sacking a nurse for being racist.…
A well-known clothes store's flawed promotion and assessment process landed them with a £96,208 judgement at an employment tribunal. Bristol…
The government has increased the scope for employers to sack employees without the threat of court cases. The new law…
A high street giant’s attempt to cut their staff bill was slapped down recently due to employment law. The High…
A landmark court ruling has boosted employment lawyers’ chances of protecting ‘sex change’ workers from harassment and unfair dismissal. Birmingham…
Government have changed their advice on telling employees to return to the workplace due to a spike in virus infections.…
The looming end to the government’s job subsidies in November will lead to some cynical bosses using redundancy to victimise…
A rail company did not need extensive medical evidence to sack an employee for being too sick to work. Employment…
An employment tribunal in November 2016 decided that a company fairly dismissed a worker when her refusal to do overtime…
Foreign workers have a right to appeal if they face dismissal over doubts about their UK residency status, appeal judges…
New legislation compels people in a workplace dispute to talk before going into legal battle in a court. Whether they…
