A dedicated Wetherspoons manager with over two decades of unblemished service has won a legendary lawsuit for wrongful termination.
- Crackdown “Mistake”
- Tribunal verdict – Unfair Dismissal
- Company Failed to weigh “Actual Seriousness”
- Compensation on the way
- Experts Call the Termination “Unreasonable”
The dismissal came after he approved a 50% discount on a small food order for a fellow employee, an act that the company deemed a breach of policy during a “crackdown” on staff discounts.
Crackdown “Mistake”
Peter Castagna-Davies, a shift leader at the Pontlottyn pub in Abertillery, Wales, was fired for approving a half-price discount on two portions of halloumi fries, two portions of chicken breast bites, and two cans of Monster energy drink for a kitchen worker.
The company was actively “cracking down” on the misuse of staff discounts, as some employees at other locations had been taking advantage of the system to feed their families.
It is unfair to fire someone because he does not magically know things in a matter of moments
-Dave Wiscon, Human Resources head, an avid reader
Unbeknownst to Mr. Castagna-Davies, the kitchen worker had already used a different manager’s till key to process a free meal for himself just minutes before.
Wetherspoons’ disciplinary chairman, Chris Jenkins, found it “worrying and surprising” that Mr. Castagna-Davies was unaware of this, ultimately leading to his dismissal for failing to “lead, manage and organise” his shift sufficiently.
Tribunal Declares Unfair Dismissal
The Cardiff employment tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. Castagna Davies, declaring his dismissal unfair.
Judge Rachel Harfield highlighted the fact that the staff discount system is built on trust and acknowledged the potential cost of abuse to the company.
Company Failed to weigh “Actual Seriousness”
The judge also pointed out that the company failed to weigh the “actual seriousness of the claimant’s actions in their actual context.”
She noted Mr. Castagna Davies’s long and loyal service, his clean disciplinary record, and the fact that this was a single incident on a shift that he could have managed better.
The tribunal concluded that Wetherspoons had acted unreasonably in dismissing him.
Compensation on the way
On a personal note, the actions of the employee are still laudable. Anyone in his place would have sued for millions, while he has humbly accepted to a discussion.
The judge, recognizing the injustice of the situation, has urged Wetherspoons and Mr. Castagna Davies to come to an agreement on a fitting compensation package.
To facilitate this, the independent mediation service, Acas, has been brought in to help both parties reach a settlement.
Should they fail to agree, a “remedy” hearing will be held where the tribunal will determine the final amount.
Experts Call the Termination “Unreasonable”
Legal and HR experts view this case as a classic cautionary tale for large organizations.
The core issue, they note, isn’t whether the company had a valid reason to be concerned about discount abuse, but whether the punishment fit the crime.
Employment law specialists frequently emphasize the “range of reasonable responses” test, which a tribunal uses to assess an employer’s actions. In this instance, dismissing a 22-year veteran with a spotless record over a minor, negligently-approved discount was deemed to fall outside that range.
From an HR perspective, this outcome highlights the pitfalls of an overly rigid, “zero-tolerance” policy that fails to allow for managerial discretion and human context.
A tribunal will almost always expect a company to have considered less severe sanctions, such as a written warning, before resorting to dismissal in such circumstances.
The case is a strong reminder to think about a human first before jumping on policies.
Also read another article on this subject here
Leave a Reply