Claimant was unfairly dismissed when he was initially summarily dismissed but the process was run again to look fair after a successful internal appeal.

The claimant was employed as Field Sales Executive for the respondent company. The claimant had had some previous related employment in Egypt, and an issue had arisen about not wishing to amend menus which included alcohol and pork citing that they were haram.  This led to an imam being called in who did not agree with the claimant’s interpretation.   Fast forward 5 years and the claimant was in the UK, and the respondent had become aware he was looking for employment.  Mr Mula, the CEO, though made it clear that he would have to work with both halal and haram businesses. 

Issues persisted in relation to issues of religious discrimination. The claimant asserted that the CEO did not like how he dressed in traditional Islamic loose-fitting clothing but the respondent refuted this and the Tribunal agreed with the respondent.  The claimant was successful in his employment being promoted both in 2020 and in 2021 becoming the UK Field Sales Manager.  Some issues persisted with a lunch being organised where alcohol was on sale and the claimant refused to attend as well as some minor issues relating to a prospective expenses claim being refused. 

Issues relating to the claimant’s performance arose with the claimant being in Egypt at one point when he was supposed to be in work.  Additionally, when the lease of a company car came to an end there was some issue relating to the claimant having a car to be able to carry out his duties. 

On 1st August 2022 the CEO conducted a review of the expenses and noticed that the claimant’s were significantly lower than the rest of the team.  This was a surprise as the claimant had a national role whereas the others had local roles.  This led to a meeting organised by WhatsApp which was for a ‘catch-up’. This led to the CEO questioning the claimant on his work, how many days he had been out in the field and pointing to poor sales figures from his team. The claimant was accused of stealing money from the company by illegitimately taking a salary. Due to the CEOs anger he dismissed the claimant on the spot.  This was appealed internally, and the decision was revoked, the claimant was reinstated but with further investigation to take place.  The Tribunal noted the unusual decision on the appeal. It was the following day that the claimant was suspended pending investigation. Following this process the claimant was dismissed again based upon failing to follow reasonable management requests relating to the work role and the extent to which he should have been in the field.

The Tribunal stated that following the summary dismissal by the CEO the steps taken thereafter had the ‘superficial appearance’ of fairness. The Tribunal was not satisfied that any of those involved in those steps had carried them out in a fair, independent and open-minded manner. It was found that the process was orchestrated to achieve the outcome already decided by the CEO.  For example, the investigator did not actually carry out the role in practice. The data relating to the fuel card which was crucial to working in the field was only presented in a partial way. The CEO had believed that the claimant was stealing from the company and in the circumstances the decision maker, an employee who was still on probation, was under enormous pressure to make sure the claimant did not come back into the business. The Tribunal regarded the process as ‘window-dressing’.

A separate remedy hearing provided a total award of £61,419.50.

The importance of proper process is again driven home here by the Tribunal. The fact that the claimant was dismissed on the spot and the respondent sought to undo the wrong was clear for the Tribunal to see. It was clear that the CEO had made a decision, and the process was then being put in place to fit the decision. This is not a fair nor legal process in these matters. The Tribunal put it aptly by saying it was ‘window-dressing’. As a result, senior managers should be mindful of the power they can exert within an employer but note that they must ensure that they are following fair process or they could be on the end of a not insubstantial compensation payment from the Tribunal.

You can read the case in full here.