The claimant was employed by the respondent which was a corporate franchisee of Rainbow International LLC. The claimant was invited to a meeting concerning a complainant made about his conduct whilst on site of a client which had the potential to cause the loss of a major commercial contract. The claimant left the meeting believing he had been let go after the Managing Director said “I am gonna have to let you go”.

The tribunal heard evidence that the Managing Director had thought the claimant was employed on an ‘ad hoc’ basis at the time and was not aware he was actually a full-time employee.  The respondent did not originally accept this and, after taking professional advice, informed the claimant that he was suspended pending an investigation and confirmed that he was still an employee. The tribunal pointed to subsequent correspondence between the parties after the date of meeting which evidenced the fact that the respondent had indeed sacked the claimant. It held that despite thinking that he was legally entitled to do so, he attempted to avoid the consequences of his previous actions. The tribunal held that the dismissal was, in the absence of compliance with the NI statutory dismissal procedures, an automatically unfair dismissal. The claimant was awarded £17,043.48 in compensation, including a 40% uplift for the employer's failure to follow the statutory procedures.

Practical Lessons

The respondent here clearly made a rash, hasty decision to sack the claimant. However, the situation is complicated by the fact that he genuinely believed he was entitled to do so based on the assumption that the claimant was an ‘ad hoc’ worker.

Pursuant to the case of Martin v Yeoman Aggregate [1983] IRLR 49 there is a ‘heat of the moment’ defence for employers which is very much limited in time and is also based on the circumstances. The respondent here would have had to have retracted the dismissal very quickly afterwards but instead a considerable period of time passed in which he attempted to argue that no dismissal had taken place. The tribunal was not impressed with the respondent’s actions and indeed noted that an honest acceptance of the error would likely have amicably resolved the matter.