The claimant was employed as a Day Care Assistant. As was standard practice (although criticised by the tribunal), on one particular occasion the claimant left the place of employment with a sum of £500 cash paid by a parent to cover childcare fees. The claimant, however, subsequently lost the money which then formed the basis of the disciplinary procedure and the ultimate decision to dismiss her. 

The tribunal was sure that the initial letter inviting the claimant to the disciplinary hearing did not warn that dismissal was being contemplated. As well as this, whilst the employer arranged for the meeting to take place only the day after it sent the invitation letter, the claimant requested that the meeting take place on the very same day as she did not want to wait. The claim of unfair dismissal was upheld.

PRACTICAL LESSONS

The tribunal was unequivocal in endorsing the judgment of Cartwright v King’s College, London [2010] EWCA Civ 1146 that the employee should be able to understand from the ´step 1 letter´ that he or she is at risk of dismissal. As well as this, the tribunal noted its doubt over whether inviting an employee to a disciplinary hearing 1 day after the invitation would afford a 'reasonable opportunity to consider their response' and so certainly holding it on the same day was unreasonable. 

The claimant also argued that the employer insisted that she be represented; which the tribunal accepted had the potential to make the dismissal 'automatically unfair'. 

What is clear is that if the employer had a) made clear the risk of dismissal in the invitation letter, and b) allowed more time between the letter and the hearing, then this would have been an extremely difficult claim to uphold.