Mr K Manir v Computershare Services Ltd (England and Wales : Breach of Contract)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff was employed as a Customer Service Advisor by Company A from November 2014 until his summary dismissal in December 2019. The Plaintiff had been absent from work due to long-term sickness related to anxiety, supported by multiple fit notes from his GP. Initially, the Plaintiff’s absence was managed under the attendance at work policy, with welfare meetings arranged and fit notes accepted as valid. However, in December 2019, a senior manager (Mr Pitts) took over management of the Plaintiff’s absence and reclassified it as unauthorised absence without leave (AWOL), initiating a disciplinary process for gross misconduct.

The Plaintiff did not attend the disciplinary hearing scheduled for 27 December 2019, citing non-receipt of the invitation letters, which was supported by postal tracking evidence. The dismissal proceeded in his absence, and he was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct due to alleged unauthorised absence and failure to provide a current fit note. The Plaintiff appealed the dismissal, but the appeal was unsuccessful. The Plaintiff then brought claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and outstanding holiday pay (the latter was withdrawn).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff’s summary dismissal was for a potentially fair reason related to conduct, specifically unauthorised absence without leave.
2. Whether the dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair, including whether the employer acted in good faith and conducted a reasonable investigation.
3. Whether the Plaintiff’s conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract entitling summary dismissal without notice.
4. Whether contributory conduct by the Plaintiff justifies a reduction in any compensatory award.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent contended that the Plaintiff’s absence was unauthorised and constituted gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal.
• The Respondent relied on the Plaintiff’s failure to attend disciplinary meetings and failure to provide up-to-date fit notes as grounds for dismissal.
• It argued that the dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair, supported by a reasonable belief in the Plaintiff’s misconduct and a proper disciplinary process.
• The Respondent submitted that the Plaintiff had failed to mitigate his losses post-dismissal and that a full Polkey reduction (100%) should apply, negating compensatory awards.
• It also contended that the Plaintiff’s contributory conduct warranted a 75% reduction in any awards.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff denied being absent without leave, asserting that his absence was authorised and supported by fit notes for anxiety-related sickness.
• He claimed the Respondent acted in bad faith, using the AWOL process as a pretext to dismiss employees on long-term sick leave quickly, referencing internal emails evidencing a hidden agenda.
• The Plaintiff argued that the dismissal process was unfair, including the failure to notify him properly of meetings and the involvement of a senior manager in multiple roles indicating bias.
• He maintained he had made reasonable efforts to mitigate loss by seeking employment post-dismissal and disputed any blameworthy conduct.
• The Plaintiff challenged the credibility of the Respondent’s witnesses and the fairness of the appeal process.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first examined whether the Respondent had established a potentially fair reason for dismissal related to the Plaintiff’s conduct. It found that the Respondent’s asserted reason—unauthorised absence without leave—was factually incorrect because the Plaintiff’s absence was authorised and supported by fit notes. The change from absence management to disciplinary action was abrupt and lacked proper investigation.

The court found that the dismissing manager, Mr Pitts, and senior manager Ms Trees acted in bad faith, demonstrated by their predetermined decision to dismiss the Plaintiff and the use of the AWOL process as a “quick fix” to remove employees on long-term sick leave. The involvement of Ms Trees as note taker and appeals officer raised serious concerns about impartiality and fairness.

The investigation conducted was inadequate: no reasonable enquiries were made to verify the Plaintiff’s explanations or to obtain missing fit notes. Mr Pitts failed to attempt contact with the Plaintiff on the dismissal day and ignored mitigating evidence such as the Plaintiff’s long-term sickness history and previous cooperation.

The appeal process was also flawed, with the appeals officer conducting the review with a closed mind, disregarding exculpatory evidence and failing to consider the fairness of the dismissal or the possibility of innocent explanations.

On wrongful dismissal, the court found that the Plaintiff did not commit a repudiatory breach of contract. The dismissal without notice was therefore unlawful, entitling the Plaintiff to damages for notice pay.

Regarding mitigation, the court accepted the Plaintiff’s oral evidence that he had made reasonable efforts to find new employment despite the challenging circumstances of dismissal for gross misconduct during the COVID-19 pandemic.

On contributory conduct, the court identified some blameworthy conduct by the Plaintiff relating to late submission of fit notes and failure to proactively communicate difficulties. However, given the bad faith in the dismissal process, only a 25% reduction was appropriate rather than the 75% claimed by the Respondent.

The court rejected the Respondent’s submission for a 100% Polkey reduction, noting the dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair and that it was not possible to conclude with certainty that the outcome would have been the same absent bad faith.

Holding and Implications

The court allowed the complaints of wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal and awarded the Plaintiff damages accordingly:

• The holiday pay complaint was withdrawn and dismissed.
• Wrongful dismissal damages were awarded at £2,352.90 for five weeks’ notice pay.
• Unfair dismissal compensation was awarded at £4,293.76, comprising a basic award and compensatory award reduced by 25% for contributory conduct.

The Recoupment Regulations were applied to the compensatory award, resulting in a prescribed amount subject to benefit recoupment and a balance payable immediately.

The decision directly benefits the Plaintiff by providing financial redress for the unfair and wrongful dismissal. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling primarily reinforces established principles regarding fairness, good faith, and proper procedure in dismissal cases, particularly the necessity for employers to conduct reasonable investigations and act impartially in disciplinary and appeal processes.