Background: 

The claimant commenced employment as a Stores Assistant/Taping Tool Repair Technician in April 2018 and was dismissed on 31st March 2021.  The respondent argued that they had a fair reason, namely some other substantial reason, due to the adverse impact on the business as a result of a video which appeared on Social Media.  

Joe Cooper from the respondent carried out an unsolicited search of the claimant’s name on the internet and it brought up a video and photograph noted as ‘The Hunted One’.   The video shows the claimant being approached while in his car where he is questioned about his intentions.  The questioning relating to the allegation that he was meeting a 14-year-old girl after messages of a sexual nature.  

The claimant was called into a meeting with his line manager.  His line manager was upset by the video. The claimant was not told of the nature of the meeting nor was he informed of the right of having a companion.   The respondent stated this was a pre-disciplinary discussion yet under cross-examination the HR Officer stated it was held under the disciplinary procedure as an investigation meeting.  The claimant questioned the account of the meeting and denied that notes had been taken during the meeting.  The claimant accepted it was him in the video but stated that it had been edited, he believed it was someone over 18 and that he had been beaten up by the two individuals who questioned him in the video.   

The claimant went on sick leave and submitted a grievance in January 2021.   This was related to the meeting without notice and what he termed as a ‘hostile kangaroo court’.  The investigator also oversaw the grievance where it was ‘unsurprisingly’ [as termed by the Tribunal] dismissed.  The meetings relating to the investigation and disciplinary continued until Mr Khan overseeing the disciplinary meeting made a decision to dismiss the claimant.  Mr Khan stated that he felt that the claimant accepted guilt in the video and that other staff may not work with him.   There was also the issue of Social Media with Mr Khan stating that it was still available (no evidence was shown) and also cited that he had formed the view that the claimant was guilty and he referenced that alongside being a father of three girls.  

Outcome: 

The Tribunal had to determine what the reason was for the dismissal.  The respondent argued that it was some other substantial reason citing that there was reputational risk to the company.  The Tribunal found that at the first meeting with the line manager and HR Officer they had formed the view that he was guilty of the wrongdoing.    The alleged risk of reputational damage was not an establishing in factor nor was it believed by the respondent on reasonable grounds.  There was no investigation into the risk that may be present and how it could be mitigated.  In fact, the Tribunal stated ‘there was no meaning investigation but a rush to judgment’.  Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.  They awarded a total sum of £21,449.93 including an ACAS uplift due to the failure to follow the correct procedures. 

Practical Guidance for Employers: 

This case demonstrates the importance of ensuring that procedure is given primary consideration in commencing an investigation and disciplinary process.  The failing here was that the claimant was called into an unsolicited meeting and the Tribunal later found that there was a rush to judgment.  From that point, it was very difficult for the respondent to unravel the wrongs that had been done.  It pervaded into the grievance and the disciplinary process, thus leading to a flawed finding to dismiss.       

The full case is available here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/654e252c8a2ed40013720cae/Mr_D_Whyley_v_Gypsumtools_Limited_2601632_2021_Written_Reasons.pdf