Dismissed Without Notice: Tribunal Sides with Claimant in Summary Dismissal Case

In Mr R Yeates v Polestar Holdings Limited and Others, a financial advisor partially succeeded with his employment tribunal claims after he was dismissed without notice. Trouble arose after it was alleged he’d made comments like calling one of the employer’s directors a “f*cking idiot”. However, after the Tribunal learned an unfair procedure had been followed, they ruled in his favour.

Read on as we discuss what happened and the Employment Tribunal’s judgment. We will examine key elements of summary dismissal, such as when it can occur and when employees can appeal.

Please reach out if you’ve faced immediate dismissal without notice and believe it was wrong. Redmans Solicitors are employment law experts who can provide specialist advice following a quick consultation.

To learn more about the help we provide, please:

The Facts in Mr R Yeates v Polestar Holdings Limited and Others

Background to Claimant being Dismissed Without Notice

Mr R Yeates (“the Claimant”) began working as a financial advisor for Polestar Holdings Limited (“the Respondent”) on 5 March 2018 when he was 66 years old. His employment started smoothly, and due to colleagues’ departures, he was the Respondent’s only financial advisor for about 15 months.

Issues arose in March 2021 when Ms Sharon Wales and Mrs Natasha Beaumont, two of the Claimant’s colleagues, raised concerns about him. The pair claimed he was becoming “confused and forgetful” when using a client management spreadsheet he’d been shown several times. These concerns were eventually raised to Mr Ian Russell, one of the Respondent’s directors, but no further action was taken.

Respondent Investigates Alleged Misconduct

Then, in October, Ms Wales raised further concerns regarding negative comments the Claimant had made about Mr Russell. Among other things, it was alleged he’d called the Respondent’s director a “f*cking idiot” and accused him of acting unlawfully.

Mr Russell became aware of these complaints during the week commencing 1 November, when he returned from annual leave. Eight days later, he sought advice from HR and began an investigation. Due to his association with the matters, he delegated Mrs Nicola Borman, the Respondent’s practice manager, to lead the process.

Mrs Borman subsequently decided to take disciplinary action against the Claimant. On 9 November, she suspended him and informed him that the matter concerned gross misconduct, which could result in summary dismissal. Ms Theresa Dunsby, the Respondent’s accounts manager, was then told to conduct the investigation.

During a meeting with Ms Dunsby, the Claimant accepted he may have provided “constructive criticism” about the Respondent’s practices or occasionally moaned. That said, he rejected the accusations toward the Respondent and alleged foul language, stating he’d rarely let such language slip.

Claimant Dismissed Without Notice 

Following her investigation, Ms Dunsby prepared her report. She sought advice from HR and understood she had three options: take no further action, provide a first and final warning, or dismiss due to “loss of trust and confidence and breakdown of employer/employee relationship.” However, she believed the first option wasn’t appropriate, so she recommended a warning or dismissal.

The investigation report was sent to Mrs Borman on 22 November, and the following day, she requested advice from HR on going down the dismissal route. The Claimant was then invited to a disciplinary hearing, which took place on 14 December.

During the hearing, Mrs Borman discussed the allegations, stating she was “very sorry to see such comments.” In response, the Claimant said, “I don’t recall some of the things that have been mentioned here… I can’t actually quantify the accusations with stuff I’ve actually said.” At the end of the hearing, he then provided her with a letter stating that he was “being subjected to harassment and bullying on account of the perception that I am a whistleblower.”

In the subsequent days, Mrs Borman requested more information from the Claimant concerning his whistleblowing allegations. Because the Claimant was suffering from stress during this period, she extended the deadline for this information to 22 December. 

However, on 23 December, after the Claimant failed to provide the information by the deadline, he was informed he was being dismissed without notice due to gross misconduct. Mrs Borman reasoned that he had failed to explain his comments adequately and felt his justification for not recalling them was unsatisfactory.

Employment Tribunal Claims Brought

On 5 January 2022, the Claimant appealed his dismissal at work, believing it was “disproportionately harsh.” This led to an appeal hearing on 18 January; however, by 1 February, it was determined that the decision would stand since the dismissal was “proportionate, fair, and reasonable.”

After receiving the news of his unsuccessful appeal, the Claimant raised a grievance concerning being dismissed without notice. This occurred on 2 February, during which he alleged harassment and discrimination linked to his age and victimisation related to whistleblowing. Unfortunately for the Claimant, this was dismissed since the Respondent believed his complaints had been covered in the appeal and he had no further right to do so.

With no other option, the Claimant decided to initiate Employment Tribunal proceedings. However, before doing so, he made a subject access request on 4 February. When the Respondent received this, they requested a £3,200 fee to cover the costs of compiling the extensive documents requested.

The Respondent justified this fee by stating they were a small company which lacked a “detailed understanding about the subject access request procedure”. The Claimant wasn’t satisfied with this response, though, so he complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Subsequently, the ICO wrote to the Respondent, explaining the fee was neither reasonable nor proportionate. Eventually, the Claimant began court action in March and, among other things, claimed unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and discrimination. 

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Following proceedings, the Employment Tribunal clarified that the Claimant hadn’t made a protected disclosure in the comments complained about. This was because it was found he didn’t have any actual belief that his comments were made in the public interest. As such, there was no possibility that he was a whistleblower or that automatic unfair dismissal could have occurred.

That said, the Tribunal found that the decision to have the Claimant dismissed without notice came before the disciplinary hearing. This was because Mrs Borman had already decided to go down the dismissal route on 23 November despite the hearing only taking place on 14 December. Consequently, his ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded.

It’s important to note, though, that the Tribunal will assess whether the Claimant could have been fairly dismissed had the proper procedure been followed at the remedy hearing. This is because, after making his claim, the Claimant was accused of sexual harassment by Mrs Beaumont.

Moving on to the wrongful dismissal claim, the Tribunal again ruled in the Claimant’s favour. After considering the facts, such as his “good record”, it was determined his behaviour wasn’t serious enough to constitute a repudiatory breach and justify summary dismissal. 

However, other than the Respondent failing to comply with the requirement to provide a written statement of particulars, all of the Claimant’s other claims failed. Following this ruling, a remedy hearing has now been scheduled to determine the Claimant’s compensation.

Can I be Sacked Without a Warning in the UK?

In the UK, individuals can be sacked without warning, provided specific criteria are met, and the employer remains legally compliant.

Definition of Summary Dismissal

In the UK, summary dismissal concerns employees dismissed without notice or payment in lieu of notice (PILON). This typically occurs due to gross misconduct, such as theft, fraud, or violence, making continued employment impossible. When making and executing this decision, employers must follow a fair, legally compliant process or risk facing court action.

Dismissed Without Notice: Can you Appeal a Summary Dismissal?

An established lawful ground for dismissal and a fair process must be followed for an employee to face immediate dismissal without notice. If either or both of these elements aren’t met, employees can appeal the decision. To do so, they should look at their dismissal letter and follow the procedure their employer has in place. If the appeal succeeds, the employee may be reinstated in their position.

Unfair Dismissal: Your Legal Options and Next Steps

Unfortunately, employees can sometimes be dismissed without notice unfairly, and even after an appeal, their situation may remain unresolved. In such circumstances, they may need to turn to legal recourse. 

Employees would first need to complete ACAS early conciliation. However, if their problem remains, they could bring an Employment Tribunal claim, provided they meet specific eligibility criteria and adhere to strict time limits. If they win their claim, they could be awarded compensation or, where appropriate, reinstated in their role.

If you’ve faced dismissal at work and believe it was unfair, please contact Redmans Solicitors now. As experts in the employment law sector, we can analyse your circumstances and provide specialist advice.

To get started, simply: