The claimant was employed by the respondent as a preparation manager from May 2015 until his dismissal on 23rd February 2018.   This case arose out of concerns relating to the milk that was in the staff room for making tea and coffee.  A system developed whereby the employees would email to state that there was no milk therefore stating that it should be replenished. On 3rd February 2018 the claimant emailed stating that there was no milk.  However, one of the other employees found this odd as there was 2 x 2 litres of semi-skimmed milk and 2 x 1 litre of skimmed milk when he had left earlier that day.   As a result of this the owner of the company examined the CCTV and within a thirty second period the claimant could be seen taking the bottles of milk from the fridge and pouring them down the sink.

There was an investigation into this leading to a letter being sent to the claimant inviting him to a disciplinary meeting on 14th February.   This letter states that it could possibly lead to a final written warning but there was no mention of dismissal.  Indeed, there is no information given in the letter about the incident or that it related to ‘dishonest intent’.   Despite requests in advance by the claimant, information was only given by way of email on the morning of the scheduled meeting.  However, in giving this information it also stated that it was a mere meeting and nothing to do with disciplinary proceedings.  At this meeting, the claimant outlined his concerns about the procedure that had been adopted and had refuted the accusation that he had poured the milk down the sink. The judgment details that the meeting got heated with the note-taker stopping the meeting.  The decision was then made to have another senior employee conduct an investigation into the situation.  A new disciplinary meeting was convened for 23rd February and the letter outlined that there was the possibility of dismissal.

The accusation of pouring the milk down the sink was again put to the claimant but he stated that he was telling the truth as far as he was aware and that it was over three weeks ago since the incident and other issues had been in his personal life.  The outcome of the disciplinary meeting was to dismiss the employee summarily with payment in lieu of notice.  The Tribunal found that whilst the respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant’s misconduct it was not formed after all necessary investigations had been carried out.   The first part of the process was done with a pre-decided outcome by the owner and in the second the investigation did not consist of any proper interviews of those involved.  For this reason unfair dismissal was found.

Practical Lessons

There may be no reason to cry over spilt milk but there will be when it costs thousands of pounds. Even in relatively minor issues where there will be disciplinary procedures it is appropriate to get them right from the beginning.  The issue here was that the owner of the company got too involved to the extent that things became heated.  This then changed the whole focus of the subsequent investigations and decisions.  The Tribunal is able to see through this and show how something relatively minor can morph into something that can be at the heart of the business.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mathew-hyett-v-stock-bounty-ltd-t-a-country-fare-1401437-2018