Background: 

The claimant commenced employment with a Sixth Form College in September 1997 initially as a Tourism Lecturer and subsequently as Course Leader for Sport.  

The claimant was dismissed by reason of gross misconduct in January 2021.  The issue arose in relation to the pandemic and changes made to running in-person classes when reopening in September 2020.  The claimant was suspended on full pay in November 2020 with it being alleged that he had cancelled Friday morning coaching sessions, falsified registers for those coaching sessions, left work without permission and not providing students with their allocated teaching hours. 

The evidence relating to students stating that their sessions had ended early, that there was permission to bring classes forward (but not cancelled), that he was not in his room when sought by another member of staff and two students stating that they were told that they did not have to go to their coaching sessions.  The claimant made a number of representations through the disciplinary hearing, as well as his representative, noting that he should have freedom as a Course Leader, stated that he had run the sessions over lunch and that’s why they had finished early.  The decision was made to dismiss the claimant based upon the allegations raised. 

Outcome: 

The Tribunal found that the decision maker, Mr Araniyasundaran was ‘completely incurious’ and that he would only take into account things said during the disciplinary hearing.  He made it very clear that he did not see or consider the minutes of focus groups with students, minutes of the investigation, a letter from the claimant’s solicitor, the claimant’s personnel file or his disciplinary record (although he assumed the claimant had a clean record).   

The Tribunal found that the respondent just genuinely believed that the claimant had committed the acts.   The Tribunal did find that the investigation did veer off path and that it appeared there was a desire to find acts of gross misconduct.   Similarly, it was found that the decision to dismiss was just within the band of reasonable responses.  However, on procedure it was found that it was not a fair and reasonable procedure.  This was on the basis that the decision maker was not impartial and failed to approach the task with an open mind.   There were no enquiries made in relation to evidence which may have supported the claimant.  The Tribunal referred to this as a ‘blinkered approach’.   Indeed, it had been accepted that due to the claimant’s health condition written submissions could be accepted.   It was unfair in all of the circumstances that the written submission from the claimant’s solicitor was not shared with the dismissing officer.  Accordingly, it was found that the decision to dismiss was unfair.  

Practical Guidance for Employers: 

Another case which demonstrates the importance in ensuring the process is fair and reasonable.   The Tribunal held that the substantive decision was genuinely believed and was within the band of reasonable responses albeit only just.  However, on the procedure it was found that the approach adopted by the decision maker made the process unfair due to the failing to take into account other evidence or consider evidence that may have been in the claimant’s favour.  This ‘blinkered approach’ must not smear the overall process when it comes to disciplinary action.   Having proper policy on process and training to complement it will be advantageous for an employer.  

The full case is here: 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6554d551544aea000dfb2db6/Mr_M_Barbrook_-v-_New_City_College_Limited_-_3203925_2021_-_Judgment.pdf