The claimant was employed as a deputy team leader in the family intervention programme run by the respondent.  At the time he was on secondment as a support worker in the Action Locality Team.  The issue leading to the proceedings arose when a female student began her placement with the respondent.  There was an incident at a pub after work where it could be shown that the claimant was in a disabled toilet with the female student.  The female student then alleged that the claimant had dragged her into the toilet and assaulted her.  This was denied by the claimant, although he stated that he did not have a clear memory.

In the respondent’s investigation, Mr Jenkins, who conducted the investigation, urged the female student to bring her allegation to the police.  In the CCTV footage there were some inconsistencies with her account and she subsequently withdrew the police complaint, outlining that she had felt pressured to make a statement by the Borough and Mr Jenkins.  At the disciplinary hearing, the manager with disciplinary authority (somewhat ironically call Ms Fair) took into account the fact that the placement student had been to the police but had not been informed not informed by Mr Jenkins that the complaint had been withdrawn.    As a result of the disciplinary proceedings, the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct.

At first instance, the Employment Tribunal rejected the unfair dismissal claim, stating that there were reasonable grounds for the placement student’s account to be preferred.  It was held that, even though the decision maker relied on the police complaint, there was sufficient evidence behind that for the conclusions.  The claimant argued that the ET had failed to apply the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Royal Mail v Jhuti,stating that, in determining reasonableness, the court must look beyond the mere reason noted for the dismissal.   This meant that the fact that Mr Jenkins had not shared the fact that the police complaint had been withdrawn should be taken into account.  Therefore, as the decision maker had taken the police complaint into account it was relevant to the overall decision.   Therefore, the ET was wrong to suggest that the police complaint being made and then it being withdrawn did not affect the overall decision.    For this reason, the appeal was allowed, with a decision of unfair dismissal being found by the EAT.

Practical Lessons: This case demonstrates the practical application of the decision of the Supreme Court in Jhuti. Whilst it was not the binding element of Jhuti that was considered, the fact that the Supreme Court stated they were building upon the decision of the Court of Appeal in ruling that the court must look behind the purported reasons for the dismissal.

This was clear with the extent to which the police complaint had been relied upon by the employer to justify a dismissal, despite the fact that it had been withdrawn, albeit unbeknownst to the disciplining officer.  This decision demonstrates the wider discretion that a Tribunal has in considering the reasons for dismissal. https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2020/0165_19_13023.html