Claimant v KCOM Group plc (sued as Kcom Group plc) — 2019

The claimant, Mr Stephen Walford, was employed by KCOM Group Plc in Hull from 1 November 2009 and was dismissed summarily after disciplinary proceedings arising from a grievance raised by a fellow employee, referred to in the judgment as IT-F. The respondent relied on allegations that he had made sexually harassing comments, and the tribunal accepted the respondent’s chronology and evidence over the claimant’s account. The claimant denied the alleged comments and argued that the respondent had relied on indirect witness evidence, but the tribunal found the surrounding evidence sufficient on the balance of probabilities to support the respondent’s case.

The tribunal found that the respondent had a reason for dismissal relating to conduct and also loss of trust and confidence. It accepted that the disciplinary and appeal process was properly run, that the claimant had been told the case he had to meet and given the opportunity to answer it, and that the respondent’s policies permitted dismissal, including summary dismissal, for gross misconduct of this kind. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s argument that telling him dismissal was a possible outcome showed prejudgment.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, the tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed the misconduct had occurred, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out as much investigation as a reasonable employer would undertake. It also held that the decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses under the Iceland Frozen Foods guidance, and that the appeal was conducted fairly. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed. The respondent’s application for costs also failed, but no monetary award was made to either side.