Miss Janet Parker v Clifton Diocese — 2021

Miss Janet Parker was employed by Clifton Diocese as Diocesan Financial Administrator/Head of Finance from February 2016 until October 2021. She was a non-Catholic and had adopted a child in 2020. The tribunal recorded that her section 80G ERA 1996 complaint about the refusal of her flexible working request failed because the request did not comply with section 80F(2)(c). Her section 47E detriment and section 104C automatic unfair dismissal complaints were withdrawn during the hearing, and her maternity discrimination claim had earlier been withdrawn at a case management hearing.

The disciplinary process grew out of concerns about the 2019 accounts, restricted funds, bank reconciliations and related accounting matters. The tribunal found that those matters had initially been treated as performance issues but were escalated to gross misconduct after the 29 July 2021 meeting about the claimant's return from adoption leave. It held that Mrs Lawrence's investigation was inadequate because she relied heavily on Mrs Lawes' account, did not properly examine the underlying source data, and did not obtain an independent view on the main SORP dispute despite the ICAEW correspondence.

The tribunal also found that the claimant was given too little time to answer the allegations, was not given advance particulars in a form that allowed proper preparation, and was required to attend an in-person investigation meeting despite repeated emails saying that anxiety, depression and panic attacks made that difficult. It found that the respondent did not properly inform Mrs Lawrence of the claimant's health issues and that Msgr Massey relied heavily on Mr Cook's advice rather than exercising his own judgment. The dismissal was therefore unfair, and the respondent also failed to prove gross misconduct for wrongful dismissal.

On the merits of the allegations, the tribunal rejected the respondent's case that the matters collectively justified summary dismissal. It held that allegations 4, 5 and 6 were performance issues rather than conduct issues, that allegation 9 was not capable of amounting to gross misconduct on these facts, and that the remaining allegations did not show deliberate and wilful misconduct or gross negligence. It declined to make any Polkey reduction or reduction for contributory conduct. Remedy was left to a further hearing, and the tribunal noted that the claimant had already accepted new employment due to start in December 2021.

The direct religion or belief discrimination claim succeeded in part. The tribunal upheld the complaints that allegations were added after the investigation had started, that the investigation and disciplinary process were rushed, that the claimant's health issues were not taken into account, and that Mrs Lawrence mocked her during the disciplinary hearing. It dismissed the complaints about suspension and about Mrs Lawrence's role in the process as not being because of religion or belief. The separate harassment claim succeeded on the mocking remark.