Unfair dismissal award slashed by 75%

Monday 13 February 2017

A woman who was awarded almost £13,500 for being unfairly dismissed has seen her payout slashed to just over £3,000 because the tribunal says her conduct did contribute to her dismissal.

Laura Lagadu took her case to the tribunal because she felt her employer hadn’t followed the proper procedure. She’d been working as a receptionist at Jersey Bowl for almost five years and was sacked for continually being late and on some occasions not even turning up for work.

The tribunal looked into the case and agreed Jersey Bowl hadn’t treated Miss Lagadu fairly: she hadn’t been told she was being called to a disciplinary meeting; that her job was a risk; wasn’t given written warnings; and wasn’t given the chance to defend herself.

But it also concluded the company did have reason to sack her and that Miss Lagadu admitted to being late on a number of occasions and knew the company was not happy with her.

In her judgement the Deputy Chairman of the Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal, Mrs Hillary Griffin notes:  “I am satisfied that at no point did the Respondent formally issue a final written warning to the Applicant. Indeed there is no evidence to suggest the Applicant received any written warnings whatsoever. It would appear that these ‘final written warnings’ were simply placed on the Applicant’s personnel file but were never properly issued or communicated to the Applicant.”

And she goes on to say: “The fact that there was a letter of termination dated prior to the Disciplinary Hearing… rendered the Disciplinary Hearing a charade where the outcome was a foregone conclusion.”

But, as Mrs Griffin goes on to say the company did have grounds to sack Miss Lagadu: “it [is] clear to me from the evidence that the Applicant’s levels of absence were very significant over a prolonged period of time, particularly since May 2016.”

In awarding compensation Mrs Griffin said Miss Lagadu was entitled to 21 weeks’ pay which came out as £13,464.78. But, “in light of all the circumstances [she] was satisfied that it was just and equitable to reduce the applicant’s award by 75%, to reflect her contribution to her own dismissal”. That left her with an award of £3,366.19.