Charles v Tesco Stores Ltd

In assessing a reduction for contributory conduct in an unfair-dismissal award, an Employment Tribunal must identify culpable and blameworthy conduct that caused or materially contributed to the dismissal. Its reasons must make the essential basis for that conclusion clear, but need not address contribution at greater length than is necessary.

The assessment of the just and equitable percentage reduction is primarily a matter for the industrial tribunal. Where the tribunal’s findings of fact clearly explain both the conduct and its causal connection with dismissal, a 50 per cent assessment will not be disturbed merely because fuller reasons could have been given.

The claimant appealed against the Bedford Employment Tribunal’s reserved judgment of 14 July 2014. The tribunal held that he had been unfairly dismissed for procedural reasons, while finding that a fair procedure would have resulted in a fair dismissal for some other substantial reason. It reduced the unfair-dismissal awards by 50 per cent for contributory conduct.

The tribunal also upheld claims for a redundancy payment and victimisation, but those matters were not under challenge. Following a preliminary appeal process, the Employment Appeal Tribunal permitted only the challenge to the contribution finding to proceed. The central issue was whether the tribunal had adequately explained its finding of 50 per cent contributory fault.

1. Appeal dismissed. Reading the Employment Tribunal’s reasons as a whole, it had identified conduct by the claimant which it found culpable and blameworthy. Its findings showed that this conduct significantly contributed to the breakdown in the employment relationship and therefore to the dismissal.

2. The tribunal had correctly directed itself that contributory conduct had to be culpable or blameworthy and causative of dismissal. It was not required to repeat all of its earlier factual findings when addressing contribution. The essential reasoning was sufficiently clear to the parties.

3. The approach was consistent with Steen v ASP Packaging Ltd [2014] ICR 56. Reasons on contribution need go no further than is necessary to convey the essential reasoning. The tribunal had adequately explained the causal link between the claimant’s conduct and dismissal.

4. The 50 per cent reduction under sections 122(2) and 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was an evaluative assessment for the industrial tribunal. Although fuller explanation was possible, no further reasons were required. The EAT inferred that the reduction was intended to apply to both the basic and compensatory awards.

5. The case was remitted to the same Employment Tribunal for the outstanding remedy hearing.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal’s 50 per cent finding of contributory conduct was upheld, and the matter was returned to that tribunal for remedy.

• Employment Tribunal (Bedford): Reserved judgment promulgated on 14 July 2014. The claimant was found unfairly dismissed on procedural grounds; contribution was assessed at 50 per cent. The tribunal also upheld the redundancy-payment and victimisation claims.