Tribunal finds Herbprime unfairly fired a 14-year worker on the day of a workplace row

Personnel Today's report does not quote the judge on Herbprime's quarrel practice itself. The reasons it does quote are the checks that automatic dismissal skips. Employment Judge Butler said "the tribunal does not accept that Ms Tso had reasonable grounds to hold the belief that she did, as it was limited to the perceptions of Ms Tan and Ms Feng. And it certainly was not underpinned by sufficient investigation." ^[13] The judge continued: "There was no consideration of alternatives to dismissal. There was no consideration given to the claimant's long service for the respondent." ^[14]

The tribunal found that Lu had a part in the row. On its findings she likely said words to the effect of "Can't you do it yourself?" to Mr Ip ^[8]. It rejected her evidence that she said nothing to cause the disagreement, because she had accepted at a December 2022 meeting that words were exchanged ^[7]. The push came from her husband, Dr Yin, after Mr Ip returned upstairs and swore at her in Cantonese ^[4]. A practice triggered by involvement in a quarrel would catch her ^[6]. The tribunal still found the dismissal "substantively unfair" and outside "the band of reasonable responses" ^[16].

Herbprime's own defence reached past the rule. The firm said Lu had received five previous informal warnings about her conduct and had bullied someone ^[15]. Both are claims about her individual record. The tribunal found no evidence to support either ^[15].

The procedure failed on speed. Ms Tso had decided to dismiss before the meeting began, on the accounts of two colleagues ^[12]. The dismissal came on 14 October 2022, the day of the row ^[3]. The judge said there had "been wholesale failure in respect of procedure in this case" ^[17]. Lu had about fourteen and a half years of service at that point ^[21], the factor the judge said was given no consideration ^[14]. Mr Ip resigned ^[5], so Herbprime lost both parties to the original disagreement ^[3].

For any operator with a conduct rule, the trade-off is speed against defensibility. In my view the rule can survive as a trigger for an investigation. Used as the decision itself, it removed the steps Judge Butler listed as absent ^[13][14]. Those steps were within reach on the day. CCTV of the incident existed, and the tribunal saw the images and footage ^[20].