Mr J Woods v Acas — 2019

Mr Woods was employed by ACAS for over 39 years and was dismissed on 10 July 2019 from a senior leadership role. The tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed he had committed gross misconduct and had reasonable grounds for that belief following the Nowicki/Chick investigation. It accepted that the claimant’s conduct, as found by the investigation and relied on by the dismissing manager, involved inappropriate behaviour towards junior female colleagues and could amount to harassment on the grounds of sex, lack of integrity and discretion, and abuse of power.

The tribunal nevertheless held that the dismissal was unfair because the process was not reasonable in all the circumstances. A central concern was the overlap between the earlier Tonks investigation and the later investigation following Q’s December 2018 email: the respondent did not evaluate the risk of disciplining the claimant twice in relation to the same material before starting the second disciplinary process, and the later review did not fully address how overlapping evidence affected credibility. The tribunal also found that anonymisation and partial disclosure of witness material prevented the claimant from properly challenging the evidence relied on against him, particularly where historic allegations were involved.

The tribunal further held that the appeal stage did not cure those defects. Ms Clews was not sufficiently independent for the appeal because of her earlier involvement in Q’s grievance and the steps leading to the second process, and the respondent did not comply reasonably with the ACAS Code of Practice, including the provisions relevant to disclosure of witness material and the independence of the appeal officer. On that basis, the dismissal fell outside the band of reasonable responses and was unfair.

On remedy, however, the tribunal found under the Polkey approach that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed on the same date even if a fair process had been followed, so no compensatory award was made. It also found that justice required a 100% reduction of any basic and compensatory award because the claimant’s culpable conduct caused his dismissal. The bottom-line monetary award recorded in the judgment was therefore nil.