A shift leader who worked at JD Wetherspoon for 22 years has won his claim for unfair dismissal after he was sacked without notice for mistakenly giving 50% staff discount to a colleague.
The judge at Cardiff employment tribunal said “there was no weighing of the actual seriousness” of Peter Castagna-Davies’ actions when he was sacked for breaching company policy.
Castagna-Davies applied a 50% discount at The Pontlottyn pub in Abertillery, Monmouthshire, for kitchen associate Noah Gardiner, who had ordered two portions of halloumi fries, two portions of chicken breast bites, and two cans of Monster energy drink. During investigations, it was later found that Gardiner took the food home.
Unfair dismissal
BA crew member too anxious to fly wins discrimination claim
Manager dismissed after covert recording with HR wins €10k
Man who used company credit card for himself unfairly dismissed
The tribunal heard there had been a crackdown on the discount because staff had been “caught taking food home to feed their whole family”. Witnesses for Wetherspoon spoke of a zero-tolerance attitude towards abuse of the staff discount policies, the cost of which is significant to the pub chain.
The tribunal heard that just before Castagna-Davies authorised the order on 31 January 2024, Gardiner had used manager Sarah Newton’s till key to order a free meal for himself – chicken breast bites and a can of Monster.
Staff discount
Wetherspoon had circulated rules stating that only one food item and one soft drink were available for free to employees on a shift. Extra items could be purchased with a staff discount of 50%, while food being taken home should be discounted by 20%.
Wetherspoon’s loss prevention system, IntelliQ, flagged the transaction approved by Castagna-Davies. Newton, who was managing a different pub, sent a message to Pontlottyn staff saying: “Guys, we have had another IntelliQ come through for the pub. Please, please watch what you are doing. I’m awaiting details, but again it’s about the 50% discount.”
Castagna-Davies looked at the transactions and replied to Newton, who clarified things. She added: “But guys, you can’t put through four things on 50%.” He replied to say he did not realise and could he reopen the account and put it through properly.
Newton told him he should be careful because the company “really were cracking down on it”. Castagna-Davies responded that he was “very pissed off” with himself.
Zero tolerance
Wetherspoon investigated and found that there was a case to answer. Chris Jenkins, a manager at another pub, chaired a disciplinary hearing. When interviewed, Castagna-Davies admitted he may have mistakenly “pressed the wrong button” applying a 50% rather than 20% discount, but denied being aware that Gardiner planned to take the food home.
Jenkins found Castagna-Davies had abused the discount policy, telling him: “Shortly before you processed Noah’s 50% on-shift discount, he had processed through the till his own staff feeding meal, some two hours after his break, when he had consumed it, which you had no knowledge of him doing so or even going on his break.
“I find this both worrying and surprising that, as the duty manager with so few staff to manage on the shift in question, you had no knowledge or control over what was going on.”
Jenkins dismissed the shift leader without notice, despite his clean disciplinary record. He cited Wetherspoon had been “vigorous” in communicating its zero-tolerance approach.
At appeal, Castagna-Davies said that Gardiner “had ordered the food in a deceptive way”. But Wetherspoon area manager Dannie Stephens upheld the dismissal, saying Castagna-Davies had “failed to lead, manage and organise your shift sufficiently to prevent the breach”.
Unfair dismissal
Employment Judge Harfield concluded it was not reasonable for Stephens to conclude this was a case of “gross incompetence or gross negligence, as opposed to being simple negligence that falls within the misconduct category of [Wetherspoon’s] policy”.
The judgment added: “There is no evidence that [Stephens] gave any thought to that at all. She seems simply to have operated on the basis that the claimant should have managed the shift better, that if he had done so the breach would not have happened, therefore the claimant should be held responsible for the breach, and it was possible under the policy to dismiss for a single act.
“There was no weighing of the actual seriousness of the claimant’s actions in their actual context. [Stephens] seemed to have viewed the claimant as diligent in other areas. It was one incident on one shift that he could have managed better. He was an employee with long service and a clear disciplinary record. The decision to uphold the dismissal at appeal stage was not within the reasonable range. In my judgment that rendered the whole dismissal unfair.”
Judge Harfield encouraged the parties to attempt a settlement before a remedy hearing takes place.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
HR roles in hospitality and leisure on Personnel Today
Browse more HR roles in hospitality and leisure
