The claimant was a bar steward for the respondent which was a private members club that operated as an unincorporated association from premises owned by Cardiff City Council.   The claimant was in this position for 8 years and had an unblemished record.   The respondent had been suffering some financial difficulties but had no point did it cease operating. There were issues with the Club’s bank account transpiring in the Club operating entirely in cash which it had done so for numerous activities including paying their employees.   These issues were resolved, and the Respondent sought to change from paying by cash to bank transfer, a week in hand.    The claimant disagreed with this change and when he was asked to bank the week’s takings he refused stating that he wished to receive his (and his wife’s) wages in cash as he was due to go on holiday.

During the claimant’s holiday there was a financial irregularity recorded through a £11,000 surplus.  It was felt that this could have arisen through receipts not being recorded properly (which was the claimant’s duty).  As the claimant was on holiday, the respondent communicated with his son asking to check the bungalow (which was provided by the respondent) if there were any receipts in the property as well as having access to the keys for the safe.   The safe keys were not provided, and the son was informed that the matter may have to be forwarded to the police.

On returning from holiday, the claimant contacted the respondent outlining his concern that he was being accused of theft.    He returned to work on 7th June where there was a meeting relating to the stocktakes which showed the surplus and it was outlined that receipts would be required.  The claimant’s position was that he had provided the weekly invoices to his line manager who should have provided them to Mr Squires for the purposes of stocktaking.  He states that particular ‘Double In’ invoices would have accounted for £7,000 and that they may not have been provided.   The line manager refuted this stating that all invoices in her possession had been given to Mr Squires. Following this meeting, the claimant was signed off on sick by his GP.    The claimant contacted the suppliers seeking to reconcile the problem and his line manager gave him one week to do so.  Nothing was forthcoming so disciplinary proceedings were advanced.

The claimant was informed of a disciplinary meeting to take place on 20th August 2018 but he stated that he would not attend as he only had two days’ notice and he had not received all of the evidence against him.   The respondent proceeded with the meeting in his absence and there were no documents or minutes ever kept of that meeting.  The result of the meeting was the dismissal of the claimant which he was duly informed of along with the possibility of appeal.   The appeal was taken and it was agreed that they would seek to work through the receipts issue.

This had been going on for a period of time and the claimant had tried to make contact on numerous occasions but with no success.   The claimant was also informed through this process that his tax and NI contributions had ‘stopped’ since October 2017.  Before any resolution, the Club ceased to operate and was closed on 17th December 2018.

The Tribunal held that whilst there was a suggestion that the dismissal was made to reduce costs without having to pay redundancy this was not substantiated.  On the point of conduct, the Tribunal outlined that there was no evidence from the decision makers regarding the dismissal and they were not able to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the reason was conduct. It was also held that the dismissal had been procedurally unfair as the respondent was inflexible in holding the disciplinary meeting, holding it in the claimant’s absence.

It is notable that this hearing took place remotely as a result of Covid-19.    A number of the respondent’s witnesses were shielding and the Tribunal felt that they could determine the issues by way of a remote hearing.  With the decision being made, it is clear that embracing technology (Cloud Video Platform in this case) can allow for hearings to go ahead.

Issues Covered

This case demonstrates a number of issues in relation to unfair dismissal both substantively and procedurally.  In terms of the procedure, it reiterates that there has to be some flexibility in holding the disciplinary meetings and it is not sufficient to merely give a date and hold it in the absence of the claimant.   Perhaps more interestingly is the fact that the Tribunal was able to hold the hearing remotely.  There were many parts of the judgment where there was no evidence put forward by the respondent (such as the decision makers of the dismissal) yet there was no suggestion that it was related to the remote nature of the hearing and rather the decisions made by the respondent.  Accordingly, it is clear that justice can still be served albeit at a distance.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-s-coles-v-the-members-of-fairwater-social-and-athletic-club-by-the-management-committee-of-the-club-1601821-2018