The claimant was employed by the respondent in 2014 as a business development manager.   He worked in the Northern Ireland office of the respondent which also operated in Great Britain.  The index incident occurred at the Christmas Party 2018 which took place near the respondent’s head office in Bury, England.    It was found in evidence that the claimant had been drinking throughout the day and culminated in an altercation with his line manager, Mr Lee, who had received the job after marrying the daughter of the Managing Director and Operations Director. The claimant had to be escorted out of the venue.

The day after the event, the Operations Manager organised a senior-management meeting with Mr Lee outlining that the claimant should be dismissed.  There was a dismissal letter drafted at this meeting, but both the Managing Director and Mr Lee agreed that they would fly to Belfast to meet with the claimant to discuss this. Prior to the meeting in Belfast, the claimant emailed Mr Lee and the Managing Director stating his behaviour was ‘unmissable’ and apologised.

At the meeting in Belfast, the Managing Director sought to speak with the claimant but there was no engagement.    The claimant then began to clear out his desk and he was told to leave behind his laptop, work sim-card and keys to the company vehicle.   He was then given the pre-prepared dismissal letter outlining no notice pay, that his final pay would be at the end of the month and that he had the right to appeal.  The claimant responded stating that he did not intend to appeal.  The dispute could be seen as arising when the claimant received no pay at the end of the month with the Managing Director stating that the pay was deducted due to the damage caused to his company car.

The claimant brought an action for unfair dismissal, failure to pay notice pay, failure to pay holiday pay and unlawful deduction from wages.  The claimant relied upon O’Neil v Woodridge Ecotech which stated that there was an automatically unfair dismissal as there was no indication that the respondent was going to rely upon the modified disciplinary procedure and the procedure had not been properly followed.  It was held that the unfair dismissal was automatically unfair for failing to follow the procedure but that there as there was a 90% likelihood would have been dismissed but for the procedural flaw and the 100% contributory conduct the basic and compensatory awards were reduced to nil.    However, the claimant was successful with the unlawful deduction from wages claim as there was no evidence suggesting the claimant signed a document allowing the deduction.  Therefore, he received £2613.35 gross.

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates how there is a need to ensure that even in the most difficult or egregious of situations that the procedure is followed. It also serves as a reminder that whilst the Christmas Party is an opportunity to let one’s hair down it can and does fall within the purview of ‘work’ thus having drastic consequences.   Whilst it can be argued that there should be a Polkey Reduction reducing the compensation to zero as seen here, it can lead to difficulties and having to proceed to a hearing.  This case also highlights the importance of ensuring that signed documents are retained and can be given in evidence as seen with the issue with damage to the car.