Mr Cohen (Litigation Friend) For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant's only adjudicated claim was unfair dismissal. The tribunal accepted that the respondent genuinely believed she had committed misconduct and found that belief was based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, including a 132-page investigation report and interviews with the claimant, Claude Denton and Charlotte Durnin. The judgment also notes an attempted separate issue about paid probation work on Saturdays through the National Probation Service, but the tribunal said it could not progress that matter because the NPS was not a respondent.

The tribunal found that, after Claude Denton became the claimant's line manager in January 2017, there were repeated disputes about home working, flexi leave and taking time off. It found that she worked from home on 20 and 27 January 2017 without prior approval, left work early on 13 and 20 February 2017 without authorisation, took leave on 8 and 17 February 2017 without prior approval, and later failed to attend work between 21 and 23 June 2017. It also found that she refused a reasonable management instruction on 3 and 4 July 2017 to report to the Stockwell Road office.

At the disciplinary stage, the panel initially treated some allegations as misconduct and others as gross misconduct, then concluded that the allegations together amounted to gross misconduct or serious insubordination because of the pattern and frequency of refusals to follow reasonable instructions. The tribunal accepted that there was a procedural irregularity because the panel's position on 22 January 2018 was not fully explained at the time, but held that the claimant knew dismissal was a possible outcome, the dismissal letter later set out the final reasons clearly, and the appeal process addressed the issue. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the band of reasonable responses approach, the tribunal held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses and dismissed the claim.