Quadrant Catering Ltd v. Smith

In a conduct dismissal case, an Employment Tribunal must review the employer’s decision rather than substitute its own view of the facts or sanction. The employer must establish a potentially fair reason by showing a genuine belief in the alleged misconduct. The Tribunal must then assess whether that belief was held on reasonable grounds following a reasonable investigation, whether the procedure was fair, and whether dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. There is no general rule that dismissal must be a last resort. Nor must the employer establish that there is no doubt about the facts. Where the Tribunal applies a substitutionary approach or misdirects itself materially, the proper course may be remission to a fresh Tribunal.

Quadrant Catering Ltd appealed against a decision of the Plymouth Employment Tribunal, which upheld Ms Smith’s complaint of unfair dismissal and awarded compensation of £24,447.

Ms Smith, a chef, had been summarily dismissed after her employer concluded that she had sworn at her line manager and failed to follow an instruction. The Employment Tribunal accepted Ms Smith’s evidence, found uncertainty about the precise language and context used, and concluded that the investigation and dismissal were unreasonable.

The appeal challenged the Tribunal’s approach to conduct unfair dismissal, its factual findings and remedy. Allegations of apparent bias were raised but were not determined because the substantive appeal succeeded. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had substituted its own view for that of the employer when assessing the reasonableness of the dismissal.

1. Appeal allowed and case remitted. The appeal succeeded on the substantive grounds. The matter was remitted for rehearing by a fresh Employment Tribunal. The bias grounds were stayed pending further order, without being determined.
2. In a conduct dismissal case, the Tribunal must identify the employer’s reason for dismissal, determine whether it relates to conduct and is potentially fair, and then apply the statutory fairness test under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The relevant questions include whether the employer genuinely believed in the alleged misconduct, whether that belief was held on reasonable grounds following a reasonable investigation, whether the procedure was fair, and whether dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.
3. The Tribunal does not decide for itself precisely what was said or what sanction it would have imposed. Its task is to assess the employer’s belief, the grounds for that belief, the investigation, the procedure and the response. The Tribunal’s approach was flawed because it concentrated on whether the words were directed at the manager or were merely an expression of frustration, instead of determining whether the dismissing and appeal managers genuinely believed that the claimant had directed the words at her manager.
4. The Tribunal’s direction that dismissal should be a last rather than a first resort, and that dismissal was justified only where there was no doubt about the facts, imposed an unwarranted burden on the employer. Each case depends on its facts. The EAT did not decide the appeal on the separate burden-of-proof error because that ground had not been raised in the Notice of Appeal.
5. The EAT declined to treat the Tribunal’s findings on investigation and sanction as plainly and unarguably right notwithstanding the error of law. On remission, any new Tribunal considering liability should address contribution. If Ms Smith succeeded, additional compensation should not be awarded before considering and making a reinstatement or re-engagement order.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed Quadrant Catering Ltd’s appeal against the Plymouth Employment Tribunal’s judgment promulgated on 13 November 2009. The case was remitted to a fresh Employment Tribunal.
• Plymouth Employment Tribunal: Upheld Ms Smith’s unfair-dismissal complaint and awarded compensation totalling £24,447.