Adwar v The Merton Hotel and others [2024] TRE 185

In this case, the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal ruled that the claimant’s dismissal was neither automatically unfair nor unfair, and that he was not subjected to race discrimination. The claimant, a Kenyan national, alleged that he was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against due to his race during the disciplinary process. The respondents accepted that the claimant was an employee but denied any discrimination.

Background

The claimant was employed by The Merton Hotel and had undertaken secondary employment without permission, which was against the company’s policy and the terms of his contract of employment.  Despite the claimant’s argument that he was unaware of the need for permission, the tribunal concluded that the policy was frequently communicated to staff. The claimant’s dishonesty during the investigation further justified the dismissal.

Key Findings

1. Secondary Employment: The claimant admitted to working part-time at another hotel without seeking permission from his primary employer, which was a breach of his contract and company policy.
2. Disciplinary Process: The tribunal found that the disciplinary process was fair and that the claimant had been given ample opportunity to present his case. The investigation and disciplinary hearings were conducted properly.
3. Comparators: The claimant compared his situation to another employee who had undertaken secondary employment but was not disciplined. The tribunal found that this comparator was not appropriate as she had ceased secondary employment after an amnesty in 2022.
4. Misconduct: The tribunal determined that the claimant’s dismissal was based on misconduct and was within the range of reasonable responses by the employer.

Conclusion

The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed, wrongfully dismissed, or subjected to any acts of discrimination by the respondents.

Implications

This decision has several implications:

1. Reinforcement of Company Policies: Employers are reminded of the importance of clearly communicating company policies, especially regarding secondary employment. This case highlights that policies must be well-disseminated and understood by all employees.
2. Fair Disciplinary Procedures: The ruling underscores the necessity for employers to conduct fair and thorough disciplinary processes. Proper documentation and adherence to procedural fairness are crucial in defending against claims of unfair dismissal.
3. Understanding Employment Terms: Employees are reminded to be aware of their contractual obligations and company policies. Ignorance of such policies is not a valid defence in disciplinary actions.
4. Honesty in Investigations: The case highlights the importance of honesty during investigations. Dishonesty can exacerbate the situation and justify dismissal.