Unfair dismissal claim was successful when the investigation was just recounting the evidence rather than testing it and the Claimant did not have precise details on the allegations against him.

The Claimant, at the time of his dismissal, was employed as the Thames Commander of the Chiswick Lifeboat. He started with the Respondent in 1986 as a volunteer crew member and became employed in 2001.

The issue leading to the dismissal was based upon alleged comments made by the Claimant including a reference to the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, being a terrorist as well as some sexualised comments made relating to other colleagues. Three individuals had raised concerns through the anonymous whistleblowing process within the Respondent.

The Claimant was suspended; an investigation took place and as part of the disciplinary process, the Claimant was dismissed. The Claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal.

The Respondent argued misconduct as the fair reason for the dismissal. The Claimant stated it was ‘political correctness’. The Tribunal did accept that the reason was the Claimant’s conduct and that it related to breaches of the Respondent’s Code of Conduct. They also found that the Respondent had a genuine belief that the Claimant had carried out the conduct. However, it was found that the Respondent did not have reasonable grounds as it did not conduct a reasonable investigation. This was on the basis that the Claimant was not given the precise allegations and was not told precisely which allegations of misconduct were being upheld as part of the process. This was also a failure of the ACAS Code of Practice. The Claimant had been told that he had breached the Code of Conduct yet not told in certain terms what those breaches were.

Through the process the Claimant had sought further information, but he was not provided with it, and it was not sought by the investigator. The investigation report was regarded as a broad-brush indictment of the Claimant, the line management and the culture of the station without ever testing the evidence that had been brought forward. The Tribunal did not find the Claimant blameless - it found that he did make comments about Sadiq Khan being a terrorist and he made remarks about Pakistanis and Polish individuals. When it came to the disciplinary meeting, it was found that it was prejudged, and it just rubber-stamped the investigatory report. Each of the allegations that had been made were not put to the Claimant as part of that process, so he could not fully respond.  As a result, the Claimant’s claim was successful. A remedy hearing is to follow in due course.

This case demonstrates the importance of having a robust and thorough process which properly investigates the matters arising rather than just copying the evidence that has been obtained.  The Tribunal made it clear that the Claimant was not blameless and found that he had made some concerning remarks within the workplace. The dismissal action was still successful as the allegations were not fully put to the Claimant, and he was not fully aware of each of those allegations.

You can read the case in full here.