The claimant was employed as a Senior Lecturer in Human Resource Management by the respondent University from 23rd September 2013 until her dismissal on 13th June 2019.  The issue arose out of the work being undertaken by the claimant and whether it complied with the terms of her contract.   The contract outlined that she was to provide high quality management of modules, including pastoral and academic advice to students.  The Code of Conduct also stated that employees should be seen to be exhibiting the highest standards of conduct and behaviour to avoid bringing the University into disrepute.

There were three sets of disciplinary proceedings.  The first in March 2018 related to issues relating to second marking of Postgraduate Dissertations, as well as accreditation of HEA Fellowship.  It was clear that the claimant had poor time management and a failure to respond adequately to emails.  The outcome was that she would complete an Email Effectiveness E-Learning course by May 2018.

The second disciplinary proceedings related to a failure to comply with reasonable management instructions and failure to engage with University processes.  The claimant was invited to attend an investigation meeting on 18th May 2018.   Her explanation was that she and her partner had been involved in a serious accident in early May and nearly died.  She then missed the email.   The lack of response continued through throughout May, when the respondent attempted to set up the investigation meeting. As a result, formal action was recommended after the investigation proceeded without the claimant’s input.   Delayed responses continued with the disciplinary process.   The claimant stated that no one had spoken to her about it but that she only received emails.  She had also failed to take the Email Effectiveness training, citing that she didn’t read the email. The outcome was that mediation should be resumed and a first written warning issued. Trying to organise the mediation was met with the same issues of ‘missing’ emails and failing to respond.

The third disciplinary proceedings related to a grievance issued by another senior lecturer, citing that the claimant had been ‘hostile’ during a Student and Staff Liaison Committee Meeting in November 2018.  This arose after complaints that some staff members were too slow in replying to emails when there was an action point that emails would be replied to within 48 hours (excluding evenings/weekends).  The lack of email answers persisted.  Through the third investigation and disciplinary process the claimant continued to ignore emails.  The disciplinary hearing was held in relation to breaches of the Code of Conduct, failure to maintain competent standards of job performance, and a breach of trust and confidence.  The claimant had been signed off sick at this point, yet the hearing proceeded in the claimant’s absence with it being found that there were serious breaches of the Code of Conduct amounting to gross misconduct.  She was dismissed on 3 months’ notice.

The claimant appealed, citing that she wanted a re-hearing on the basis that she could not attend the disciplinary meeting on grounds of ill-health.  At the appeal, her companion was not able to advocate after being told he could not by the chair.  This was contrary to the statutory right conferred upon companions (as set out in Section 10(2B) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 and the Acas Code of Practice).  This, coupled with the fact that the disciplinary hearing went ahead despite the claimant’s absence, there was a finding of unfair dismissal. The substance of the decision was regarded as falling into the band of reasonable responses, even though it would be categorised as misconduct rather than gross misconduct under the Respondent’s policy.  The breach of the ACAS Code led to a 10% uplift but this was counteracted by an 80% reduction as a result of contributory conduct.

Practical Lessons 

This case yet again demonstrates the need to ensure that statutory and company policies are complied with in the disciplinary process.   The fact that the companion in the appeal was not allowed to advocate was against statute and placed the respondent in a difficult position for the case.  The failure to postpone the disciplinary meeting to allow the claimant to return to work also went in favour of unfair dismissal.   This reiterates that proper processes need to be followed to ensure that unfair dismissal orders cannot be made even where the substance of the decision is regarded as appropriate.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/601a6e7e8fa8f53fc149bc54/Miss_J_Partridge_v_The_University_of_Northampton_-_3325458-2019-_Judgment.pdf