Mr Gloag - counsel For the v Ms Hollins, Solicitor — 2020

The claimant, a part-time associate lecturer, was dismissed for gross misconduct after allegations that he had made comments of a racist nature during a meeting with his course leader on 28 March 2019. The tribunal found that, although he disputed some details such as the alleged reference to DNA, he largely did not deny making the substance of the comments recorded in the investigation materials, including generalisations about African, Eastern European, Jewish and Black people. It rejected his case that the conversation was private in a way that took it outside the workplace, and found that his later email response reinforced the respondent's concerns.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996, Burchell, Iceland Frozen Foods and J Sainsbury v Hitt, the tribunal held that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct founded on a reasonable investigation. It accepted the investigation notes as an accurate summary, found that there was no requirement to call Dr Bonar at the disciplinary or appeal stages because the core facts were not materially in dispute, and held that the absence of minutes of the disciplinary hearing and the lack of precision in the letters did not make the dismissal unfair in the circumstances.

The tribunal further held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. It found that the claimant's comments amounted to stereotypical generalisations about racial, national and religious groups, that he did not show sufficient contrition, and that the respondent was entitled to conclude there was a risk of repetition. It also took account of the respondent's duty to protect staff and students in a multicultural institution. The appeal was not upheld, and because the dismissal was found fair, the breach of contract claim for notice pay also failed.