The recent case of Castagna Davies v JD Wetherspoon PLC has not only captured the media’s imagination but also serves as an important reminder of how crucial consistency is in disciplinary processes. With headlines such as: “Over-zealous’ Wetherspoon manager fired over halloumi fries”, it’s easy to see why this story struck a chord with the public. However, behind the catchy headlines lies a valuable employment law lesson for both employers and employees.
The Background
Mr Castagna Davies had worked for JD Wetherspoon for over 22 years. In 2024, he was dismissed without notice for applying a 50% staff discount on food and drink for a colleague. The colleague then took the items home to consume off the premises.
JD Wetherspoon had recently introduced a strict staff discount policy which limited:
- The percentage discount available; and
- Where discounted items could be consumed.
This was in response to significant costs being incurred by staff taking food home to feed their families. Mr Castagna Davies explained that he had pressed the wrong button on the till by mistake, applying a 50% discount instead of the 20% discount that applied to off-premises consumption. He argued that this was not a case of dishonesty but an error, something that should have been treated as a performance issue rather than gross misconduct. The company, however, viewed this as a serious breach of policy and trust.
What the Tribunal Said
The tribunal accepted that the dismissal was based on conduct, which is recognised under the Employment Rights Act 1996 as a potentially fair reason for dismissal.
However, the disciplinary and appeal processes were not straightforward. Two managers were involved and their conclusions differed significantly:
- CJ (disciplinary manager) – concluded that the claimant had intentionally and deliberately abused the discount policy. In his view, this amounted to gross misconduct, and dismissal could have been a reasonable response.
- DS (appeal manager) – took a different view. She accepted that the claimant thought the food would be consumed on site during a break. She upheld the dismissal, but only on the basis that the claimant had not managed the shift effectively.
The judge found this inconsistency problematic. DS had not considered the overall seriousness of the claimant’s actions in context. Instead, she upheld the dismissal based on an issue of negligence, not dishonesty. This inconsistency between the managers meant that the final decision was not within the “reasonable range of responses” available to an employer.
The tribunal therefore held that the dismissal was unfair. Compensation will now be assessed.
Why This Matters for Employers
The case highlights several key points for employers:
- Consistency is critical
When more than one manager is involved in disciplinary and appeal stages, it is vital that the findings are aligned. Differing conclusions can undermine the fairness of the process. - Context matters
Employers must weigh the seriousness of an incident against factors such as long service, previous conduct, and whether the behaviour was intentional or accidental. In this case, Mr Castagna Davies had over two decades of unblemished service. - Clear reasoning is essential
Decision-makers should clearly explain why they believe conduct amounts to misconduct or gross misconduct, and how this aligns with the company’s policies and procedures. - Training for managers
Managers involved in disciplinary processes should be trained not only in applying company policies but also in ensuring decisions are consistent, fair, and proportionate.
Lessons for Employees
For employees, the case demonstrates that if you are dismissed, it is worth carefully examining:
- Whether your employer followed its own disciplinary procedures.
- Whether the reasons given for dismissal were consistent and properly considered.
- Whether the decision appears proportionate in light of your service record and the seriousness of the alleged misconduct.
Employees have the right to challenge dismissals they believe are unfair, as Mr Castagna Davies successfully did in this case.
Final Thoughts
This judgment, handed down on 8 August 2025, shows how critical it is for employers to ensure disciplinary procedures are applied with consistency, transparency, and fairness. A policy may be clear, but if the reasoning behind a dismissal does not match up at each stage of the process, the dismissal may still be deemed unfair.
At Richard Reed Solicitors, we advise both employers and employees on all aspects of employment law, from drafting and applying disciplinary policies to advising on unfair dismissal claims.
If you are an employer seeking support with a unfair dismissal claim, or an employee who feels that your dismissal has not been handled properly, please contact, Kat Moody, for expert Employment Law advice.
