Ramkissoon v. Brompton Bicycles Ltd

Where an Employment Tribunal fails to consider material evidence capable of affecting its conclusions on the fairness of a dismissal, its decision cannot safely stand. The omission is particularly serious where the evidence goes to the employer’s asserted belief in misconduct, the grounds supporting that belief, or the adequacy of the investigation. The appropriate course may be to set aside the decision and remit the case for a rehearing before a differently constituted Tribunal. The appellate tribunal should not substitute its own view of the merits where the overlooked evidence might lead to the same or a different conclusion on rehearing.

The claimant appealed against an Employment Tribunal decision dismissing claims for unfair dismissal and outstanding wages. The dismissal arose from allegations that he had dishonestly inflated “lost hours” in a complex payment system based on inspection work. The Employment Tribunal found that the employer had a genuine belief in the claimant’s guilt, supported by reasonable grounds, and that its investigation was adequate.

The appeal focused on the Tribunal’s failure to address evidence that “lost hours” were calculated conventionally, including a standard credit of 30 minutes for inspecting each repair bicycle. The central issue was whether that omission was material to the Tribunal’s assessment of the dismissal.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Tribunal’s decision was set aside and the case was remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal.
2. The issue was whether the employer had a genuine belief in the claimant’s guilt of falsifying time sheets, whether that belief was based on reasonable grounds, and whether the investigation was reasonable in all the circumstances.
3. The Tribunal had failed to address important evidence that “lost hours” were calculated on a conventional basis rather than representing only actual time spent on non-inspection work. A standard 30-minute credit was apparently allowed for each repair bicycle inspected, although the actual inspection could take substantially less time.
4. That convention could legitimately inflate the recorded lost hours and affect the apparent inspection rate. The documentation also showed days on which recorded lost hours exceeded the claimant’s total clocked hours. The Tribunal instead relied on the employer’s figures and witness expertise without considering the convention or whether it had been factored into the employer’s calculations and disciplinary process.
5. The omission concerned an extremely material, potentially crucial part of the claimant’s case. Although a Tribunal on rehearing might reach the same conclusion, the existing conclusion could not safely stand. The adequacy of the employer’s broad-brush investigation was also left to be considered on rehearing.
6. Remittal to the same Tribunal was inappropriate because the omission went to the heart of its decision.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the appeal from the Employment Tribunal sitting at London South. The decision dismissing the claims was set aside and the case was remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted Tribunal.