Mr S Dix v Neath Port Talbot College — 2021

Mr Dix, a Mechanical Engineering Lecturer with 22 years' service and a clean disciplinary record, was dismissed after an incident on 7 February 2018 in which he used lightweight drawing boards to rouse Student A, who was apparently asleep in class. The tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed he had lobbed two boards towards Student A, that he had been reckless as to the outcome of his actions, and that this amounted to conduct capable of justifying dismissal under section 98 ERA 1996.

The tribunal accepted that there were reasonable grounds for the respondent's substantive misconduct conclusions, including that the claimant had acted in a seriously unprofessional, unacceptable or irresponsible way, that the conduct was dangerous, and that it could potentially bring the College into disrepute. It also accepted that, on the evidence before the disciplinary panel, the respondent could reasonably conclude that the boards may have made contact with Student A, although that was not treated as the central issue.

The dismissal was nevertheless found to be unfair for procedural reasons. The tribunal was troubled by the quality of the initial record-keeping, including the lack of a proper note of the foster parent's original complaint and the confused account of the first discussion with the claimant and SA. It also noted an incorrect allegation of injury being put to the claimant, a direction from HR not to take the claimant's credibility points into account at investigation stage, and the fact that the disciplinary and appeal panels were made up of Ms Lewis and Mr Dacey, who were sister-in-law and brother-in-law, creating an appearance of lack of impartiality. Taking the process as a whole, the tribunal held the respondent had unfairly dismissed the claimant.

On remedy, the tribunal held that even if a fair procedure had been followed, the claimant would inevitably have been dismissed, because the admitted lobbing of the boards was itself gross misconduct. It therefore assessed a 100% Polkey reduction for any compensatory award. It also found contributory fault and applied a 100% reduction to the basic award and any compensatory award, so there would be no financial award. The claimant's request for reinstatement or re-engagement was left to a further remedy hearing if he wished to pursue it.