Mr J Thornhill v London Borough of Camden — 2018

Mr Thornhill was employed by the London Borough of Camden from 17 July 1980 until his summary dismissal on 4 September 2017. The case concerned the Public Realm Maintenance and Improvement contract tender process, in which he was the lead professional on the street lighting specification. The tribunal accepted that his son suffered a catastrophic road traffic accident in September 2015 and that this affected the Claimant during the relevant period. It also accepted that he had asked to be removed from the tender process and that he had no formal training in tender handling.

The Respondent relied on internal audit findings and later disciplinary reports to allege dishonesty, failure to disclose the sharing of pricing information, and a hospitality-related issue concerning rugby tickets. The tribunal found that the investigation was seriously flawed. It held that the Claimant was not clearly told that he himself was being investigated for dishonesty or fraud, that only one of several meetings was properly recorded, that important witness material was heavily redacted or not provided, and that the disciplinary report produced by Ms Conners did no more than repeat the audit allegations. The tribunal was concerned that the Respondent relied heavily on legal advice obtained for the civil claim brought by FMC, but that advice was not produced in full and could not be tested.

Employment Judge Welch accepted that the dismissing officer, Katherine Robertson, honestly believed the Claimant was guilty, but held that there were no reasonable grounds for that belief because the investigation was inadequate. Applying BHS v Burchell and section 98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal concluded that the dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses. It also found that no reasonable employer would have concluded on the available material that the Claimant had acted dishonestly or committed gross misconduct. The tribunal rejected the contention that the hearing going ahead in the Claimant’s absence was itself unfair or a breach of natural justice.

The tribunal rejected contributory conduct and Polkey reduction. It found that the Claimant’s conduct during the tender process was not blameworthy in the way alleged, and that his illness meant his failure to engage with the disciplinary process could not justify a reduction. Because the investigation itself was not reasonable, the tribunal did not make any Polkey deduction. Liability only was determined in this judgment; the case was to be listed for a separate remedy hearing if the parties could not agree quantum.