The claimant was a Building Control Officer and claimed unfair dismissal. The respondent claimed that the dismissal was fair as the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct. The factual background to the case involved the claimant being approached privately to advise on a particular set of building works.

The claimant knew that this work had been done before planning permission and building control approval had been obtained. The claimant accepted that he should not have assisted in submitting a planning application when such unapproved work had been carried out. A disciplinary investigation was held, followed by a disciplinary hearing and a letter of dismissal containing the finding of gross misconduct.

An unsuccessful appeal hearing followed. Whilst the claimant accepted that his actions were contrary to his terms and conditions, to the Code of Conduct for Local Government Employees and were contrary to his professional responsibilities, he contended that the penalty of dismissal was too harsh in the circumstances. He argued that he was dealt with more harshly than a colleague ‘Mr M’ who was not disciplined for a similar offence. The tribunal held, inter alia, that the two situations were not comparable since in the case of ‘Mr M’ no money was exchanged and no work was actually carried out.

In contrast, in the claimant had indeed involved himself in those two activities, as well as failing to make the requisite declarations to his employer. Ultimately, the actions of the employer in relation to both procedure and penalty were within the band of reasonable responses for a reasonable employer in the circumstances. The claims were dismissed.

Practical lessons

The ‘enforcement role’ of the claimant’s position was cited as ‘the key point in the case’ by the tribunal and his seniority unquestionably contributed towards their reluctance to interfere with the respondent’s decision to dismiss him. The case decision also highlights that in a conflict of interest situation, a claimant’s first duty is to his employer and there is an ostensible burden on the claimant to demonstrate that he acted in accordance with it. Added to this, the claimant’s own acceptance of the seriousness of his actions was highlighted by the tribunal as counting towards the reasonableness of the respondent’s actions.