Mr C Watmough v Liverpool City Council — 2021

The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after an investigation into an anonymous whistleblowing complaint alleging that he had shown colleagues a sexually explicit video at work. The tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine belief in the misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a sufficient investigation. It accepted that although only one witness said she had seen the video, there was sufficient corroborating evidence from other witnesses about the claimant showing or trying to show a video and about consistent descriptions of its contents.

The tribunal rejected the procedural criticisms advanced by the claimant. It found that not interviewing Dan Warburton was not a procedural defect because he was not at work on the day of the incident, and that the claimant had not been prevented from appealing because he had not properly pursued an appeal out of time after the outcome letter was sent to an email address used by HR.

The tribunal concluded that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses for showing a sexually explicit video to colleagues at work, particularly where at least one colleague had said she did not want to see it. It also stated that, given the claimant's live final written warning, dismissal would in any event have been within the range of reasonable responses. On the wages claim, the tribunal found that the claimant's fixed working patterns attracted irregular hours and weekend allowances rather than shift allowance, and that the respondent had paid him correctly.