A car dealership dismissed an employee without notice, pay or reason, and was found to have fabricated documents to purport that a fair process was followed, an employment tribunal has ruled.
Mr Tunnicliff, who worked at Baytree Car Sales in Spalding, Lincolnshire for 24 years, was awarded £38,230 in compensation for unfair dismissal, breach of contract and unpaid wages. The award included a 25% uplift in the sum for unfair dismissal because the organisation did not follow the Acas code of practice for disciplinary procedures.
Tunnicliff had worked at Baytree Care Sales since he was a teenager and worked his way up to a management position. During his time at the firm, he would sign cheques on behalf of business owner Glenn Manuel, and had a good relationship with Manuel and his family.
When Manuel died in 2021, it was agreed by the family that Tunnicliff should continue to run the business. However, their relationship became strained later that year.
Employment tribunals
How to deal with an employment tribunal
Top 10 HR questions December 2022: unfair dismissal compensation
In October 2021 he received an email suspending him from work while allegations of gross misconduct were investigated. No details of the alleged misconduct were ever provided, Tunnicliff claimed.
Documents that Baytree Car Sales provided to the tribunal appeared to show Tunnicliff had been invited to a disciplinary hearing on 1 November 2021. There were also notes from the supposed meeting, which said Tunnicliff had received a final written warning. The tribunal did not believe these notes were genuine.
Baytree Car Sales denied it had falsified documents for the tribunal. It told the BBC: “Baytree Car Sales disputes that Mr Tunnicliff was wrongly dismissed or that paperwork was forged for the tribunal. One of the directors was unable to attend the tribunal due to other commitments, and he could have provided explanations which would have proved this.”
Tunnicliff told the tribunal that a week after his suspension he received a phone call from one of the company directors, who told him to come back to work.
In February 2022 Tunnicliff received a letter informing him he had been given a final warning. The letter makes several serious allegations against Tunnicliff none of which had been investigated or discussed with him before issuing him with the warning.
The company provided the tribunal with a letter showing he had been invited to a disciplinary hearing in March, but the tribunal judge found this had also been fabricated for the purpose of the tribunal.
It was alleged by the firm that there was a meeting on 3 March 2022 between Tunnicliff and his employer. The firm claimed the meeting was concerning Tunnicliff signing cheques on behalf of Manuel after his death. The tribunal was satisfied that the meeting did not take place, and Tunnicliff claimed that he had signed cheques, including his wage cheques, and other business documents in Manuel’s name for many years, which the firm had been happy for him to do.
On the day he was dismissed, Tunnicliff had a disagreement with a company director. That evening, the director sent him a text message that stated: “hand keys in tomoz u no longer work for us or my family (sic)”.
Tunnicliff claimed he never received a P45 document from the firm.
The employment tribunal in Lincoln found no evidence to suggest that Tunnicliff had been dismissed for any misconduct, and that his dismissal had been unfair.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Employment judge Richard Hutchinson said: “I have decided in this case that it would be just and equitable to uplift the compensatory award by the maximum of 25%. This is because of the complete failure by the respondents to undertake or abide by the Acas code of practice, particularly in the circumstances where they have an employee who had given loyal service to them for a period of 24 years. Their behaviour is nothing short of reprehensible and the maximum uplift on the award is appropriate in this case.”
