The claimant in this case was a regional manager in a UK-based firm, which hadn’t been doing well and, according to the claimant, had taken to dismissing staff on weak, if not spurious, grounds in order to reduce staffing costs. 

Having carried out some of these poor-practice dismissals, the claimant shouldn’t have been too surprised to find himself at the end of one, the alleged misconduct being that he had sent an email regarding sales figures to another employee (the claimant says it was legitimate to do so). He was advised by another manager not to go and that he would be dismissed if he went.

The claimant went to the meeting and resigned, he says to avoid a protracted and inevitable dismissal for gross misconduct.

The respondent is insolvent and in administration and did not defend the proceedings. The claimant was awarded €123k, equivalent to 85 weeks’ gross pay, based on the uncontested evidence. 

One of the unfortunate side effects of the Government’s decisions to anonymise EAT decisions is that we will not now know who this bad employer is and that will be the case with other employers who allegedly carry out bad practices, regardless of whether or not they are in administration or still trading:

http://bit.ly/14dXq7P