The claimant was employed as a Security Guard until the effective date of termination of his employment. He was dismissed for alleged gross misconduct, categorised under the relevant policy as ‘serious insubordination’. After a disciplinary meeting the claimant received a ‘Termination of employment’ letter confirming his summary dismissal and right of appeal. 

It was accepted that certain defects existed in the disciplinary procedure including reference to one incorrect ground for dismissal (that the claimant had a ‘final written warning’) and a failure to advise the claimant that dismissal was a potential outcome. The tribunal also considered how the eventual outcome letter contained a number of additional matters which were not related to the one specific allegation made against the claimant. 

The tribunal found that the employer had not carried out ‘as much of an investigation into the matter as was reasonable in all the circumstances’ and also criticised the suitability of the Operations Manager to conduct the investigation. It held that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed.

PRACTICAL LESSONS

The tribunal focused on the inept investigation procedure adopted which entailed myriad errors and held that the combination of irregularities amounted to a ‘mindset towards the claimant leading to his dismissal’. Crucially, the managers investigating the allegations considered the completely unsubstantiated ‘final written warning’ which materially affected their judgement. 

This case illustrates the grave consequences of disparities between original allegations made against an employee and subsequent reasons contained in an outcome letter. As this case demonstrates, such findings will only persuade a tribunal that the respondent was always minded towards dismissal of the claimant regardless of contrary evidence and mitigating factors. Therefore, any allegations contained in an outcome letter should correspond with the initial wording of the invite letter as well as the disciplinary or other relevant policy.