Where an employer has unreasonably failed to comply with the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, an Employment Tribunal (ET) may uplift an award of compensation by up to 25 per cent, as a recent case demonstrates (Smith v Amadeo Systems Ltd and Another).
A man who had been dismissed from his role as a marketing associate brought claims of automatic unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination and harassment related to race. He alleged that his employer's CEO had made a number of overtly racist remarks, and that he had been dismissed for asserting his statutory right to a rest break after he had been asked to work two weekends in a row. He also claimed unlawful deduction from wages and unpaid holiday pay.
After hearing from a number of witnesses, the ET concluded that the alleged remarks had not been made. The ET also found that he had been dismissed because he had left an exhibition without permission, and that he had not made any assertion of a statutory right at that time. His race discrimination, harassment and automatic unfair dismissal claims were therefore unsuccessful, although the ET observed that he would have won a claim for ordinary unfair dismissal if he had had two years' service.
His claim of unlawful deduction from wages was upheld, however. The employer argued that it was entitled to make a deduction because he had logged fewer hours than he was contracted to do, but the ET noted that he was not an hourly-paid employee and that, if he had not been working his contracted hours, the proper way to deal with this would have been through the disciplinary process. The employer was ordered to pay him £2,917. He was also awarded £404 in respect of unused holiday leave.
The ET found that there had been a wholesale failure by the employer to comply with the Acas Code. The man had not been informed of the charge against him and there had been no disciplinary process. The employer had also failed to deal with a grievance he had submitted immediately after being dismissed. Although he had brought a claim based on untruths, the deductions and the failures to follow the Code predated his claim. Accordingly, the ET considered it just and equitable to increase his award by 25 per cent.