UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Procedural fairness
The Claimant is an academic. Following a complaint arising from his having had a sexual relationship with a student, he was the subject of a disciplinary process which resulted in his dismissal. The decision of an Employment Tribunal that the Claimant was fairly dismissed was overturned by the EAT and the matter remitted for a fresh hearing. The second Employment Tribunal held that the Claimant was fairly dismissed. The Claimant appealed that decision.
The Respondent had issued detailed guidance on relationships between staff and students which the Claimant was expected to follow. However, he could only be dismissed for conduct of an ‘immoral, scandalous or disgraceful nature incompatible with the duties of the office or employment.’ (For short: ‘immoral, etc., conduct.’)
The disciplinary process went through the following stages: investigation and report and recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor; disciplinary charges and hearing; decision to dismiss by Vice-Chancellor on recommendation of the disciplinary panel; appeal to an external barrister. The disciplinary panel found the Claimant guilty of (1) failing to report the relationship, which had created a potential conflict; (2) abuse of power to influence a vulnerable student; and (3) breach of his duty of care to her. It found this amounted to immoral, etc. conduct. The appeal officer upheld (1) and (3) and also considered that such conduct amounted to immoral, etc., conduct.
The principal ground of appeal concerned the Tribunal’s approach to the evidence that material in a draft of the investigation report was removed from the final report, in particular a statement that there was no evidence that the Claimant’s conduct amounted to immoral etc., conduct and other conclusions favourable to his case.
As to this, the Tribunal’s decision, read as a whole, addressed the questions which the EAT in the first appeal had said should be considered. It found that the report had been amended on the advice of a solicitor that it should not set out evaluative conclusions on whether the Claimant’s admitted factual conduct amounted to an abuse of power, a breach of duty or immoral etc., conduct. Those judgments should be left to any Disciplinary Tribunal that was subsequently appointed. The Tribunal properly concluded that adopting that approach was not unfair.
Nor had the Tribunal erred in referring in one particular passage to the Claimant having admitted breaches of the ‘rules’ because he had admitted to having had a sexual relationship with a student which he had not reported. The Tribunal was clearly referring there to the Respondent’s guidance and to the factual conduct which had indeed been admitted, and underpinned all of the disciplinary charges. It was plainly aware of all three charges.
The Tribunal’s decision, read as a whole, sufficiently addressed the case that had been advanced for the Claimant, that, for various reasons, the removal from the final investigators’ report, of the conclusions that were included in a previous draft had irredeemably tainted the subsequent process with unfairness. Its overall decision was Meek compliant.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Citations:
[2019] UKEAT 0255 – 18 – 0210
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.642769