The Reading Employment Tribunal has recently upheld a chef’s claims that he was wrongfully and unfairly dismissed, as well as subject to sex discrimination, after two incidents referred to throughout the case as ‘the Birthday Cake allegation’ and the ‘Valentine’s Day Biscuits’.
Mark Harding worked as a chef for Bright Horizons Family Solutions. He was placed on a performance improvement plan in March 2020 and ultimately dismissed on 16 October.
In this article, Employment Solicitor Chris Dobbs breaks down this case and outlines how the tribunal proceedings were far from a cakewalk.
The allegations
The headline of this story is that Mr Harding was dismissed for misconduct due to a series of incidents which the Tribunal went on to describe as ‘trivial’.
In February 2020, he made heart-shaped biscuits and offered them to all staff but for two because he allegedly did not like them.
In another incident, it was alleged that he had deliberately or negligent burnt a cake which children had made for one of the managers and then thrown it away.
In a separate allegation, the Tribunal was told about an incident where Mr Harding had deliberately locked a colleague in a toilet cubicle, or somehow blocked their exit. The member of staff described feeling distressed by the incident.
What did Mr Harding allege?
Mr Harding alleged that he had been subjected to unfair practices by what he called a “clique” of female bosses and that they had colluded to ensure his dismissal.
He had appealed his dismissal and highlighted concerns with impartiality as well as the evidence relied upon. At this time, he specifically raised discrimination on the basis of sex.
What happened at the tribunal?
The Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Harding as well as several Respondent witnesses.
The judge concluded that the decision-makers genuinely believed that Mr Harding was guilty of the alleged acts but that the underlying investigation which led to that conclusion was not reasonable.
The judge found failings in the relevant evidence presented, selective use of witnesses and a failure to disclose relevant information to the decision maker.
These failings in the process rendered the dismissal unfair.
As a result, the Respondent had also breached Mr Harding’s contract by summarily dismissing him. As they could not show that gross misconduct had taken place, he was entitled to be terminated on notice.
What about the sex discrimination claims?
In relation to the sex discrimination claims, the Respondent was unable to justify why it imposed a performance improvement plan.
The Tribunal therefore was able to conclude that it must have been, as Mr Harding alleged, due to his complaint about a separate incident.
The Tribunal also found that the reasons for the failings in the investigation process described apart were partly motivated by gender-bias.
How did the case conclude and what was the tribunal award?
The reasons for the dismissal were described individually by the Tribunal as “comparatively trivial” although the judge acknowledged that collectively some of the acts could suggest a deliberate targeting or exclusion of colleagues.
This, however, would justify management and did not amount to gross misconduct.
Mr Harding was awarded £2,730.47 as a basic award along with payments for interest and loss of statutory rights.
The discrimination claim was considered a mid-Vento case with an award of £19,000. An uplift for failure to follow Acas guidelines was applied and interest was also added to the award.
The total award was therefore £33,666.99.
Unusually, the Judge also imposed a costs orders against the Respondent of £1,250 plus VAT. Although not clear from the judgment, it is presumably for the remedy hearing itself.
A specialist Employment Solicitor’s view
Employment Solicitor Chris Dobbs says: “This case goes to show how important it is that disciplinary processes are handled fairly and considered objectively.
The headline story is amusing but it took Mr Harding over two years to get this matter resolved over something which should never have led to his dismissal in the first place.
Disciplinaries and investigations can be complex and where they are handled with any kind of bias employers do run the risk of claims for unfair dismissal and, as in this case, discrimination claims.”
Employment law advice and guidance: Stay up to date
To keep up to date with employment news, tribunal and updates; you can register for our free newsletter here.
Employment & HR Solicitors
If you have any questions following this article, or would like to speak to a member of the team, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with our bright Employment Experts.
Call us on 01202 499255, or fill out the form at the top of this page, for a free initial chat.
Comments