The claimant had worked for the respondent as Principal Building Control Officer and was employed for approximately 18 years up to the date of his dismissal in June 2013. He claimed unfair dismissal, alleging that the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate for the misconduct alleged. 

At the core of the case was a property which had failed to apply for planning permission and was the subject of an investigation by the respondent. The claimant, in his professional role, was involved in the correspondence with the owners of the property, informing them of the need to apply. 

After the property was repossessed and put on the market for sale, the claimant and his wife purchased it. A factual dispute arose as to whether the claimant had properly informed his work superiors that the property was in breach of building and control and did not have the requisite planning permission. However, it was clear that the claimant had failed to properly apply for planning permission and building control as he should have. 

Essentially a ‘conflict of interest’ arose, followed by initiation of disciplinary proceedings which indicated that the claimant’s actions may have amounted to ‘gross misconduct’. The allegations were upheld based on a number of factors, not least that his ‘professional reputation… was damaged to such a degree that his position was untenable’ and damage to the ‘trust and confidence’ between the claimant and respondent. An unsuccessful appeal hearing then followed. The tribunal considered that the dismissal of the claimant was fair, and his claim was dismissed.

* PRACTICAL LESSONS

The tribunal noted the unfortunate series of events that led to a long standing, senior employee being dismissed for gross misconduct. However, invariably they also recognised that with such experience comes a corresponding appreciation and knowledge of the proper procedures to be followed. 

Put simply - an employee in such a senior position was expected to ‘act by the book’, especially when the relevant Code of Conduct clearly spelt out this requirement. What appeared persuasive to the tribunal was that public confidence could be weakened by the actions of such a senior figure in the organisation. This led to the finding that the respondent’s actions were within ‘a band of reasonable responses’.