Mrs C Kenworthy v Think Employment Limited — 2021

Mrs C Kenworthy was employed by Think Employment Limited as a Learner Engagement Manager from 7 October 2013. After complaints about her conduct towards learners at the Stockport centre on 4 December 2019, she was suspended and later dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal also dealt with a limitation issue at the start of the case and allowed the claim to proceed out of time, finding that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to file in time because her representative misunderstood the time limit and the claim was prepared by telephone during lockdown.

On the facts, the tribunal accepted that the claimant could be unfriendly, unapproachable and impatient with learners, and it found that she shouted at a learner called Margaret in front of other learners. It did not accept every allegation advanced in the investigation: for example, it did not find that she shouted at the learner who struggled with the term "next of kin" or that she had reduced another learner to tears, although it did find that some of her conduct was not in accordance with the respondent's Code of Conduct. The tribunal held that conduct was the potentially fair reason for dismissal and that Mr Hallam genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of misconduct on the basis of reasonable grounds.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the investigation and disciplinary process were not reasonably fair. The tribunal found that the allegations were never clearly set out in the suspension, disciplinary or dismissal letters, that the scope of the case drifted from the specific incidents on 4 December 2019 to the claimant's general conduct, and that the specific incidents were not properly pursued with witnesses once the claimant denied them. It also found that Mr Hallam did not present the case neutrally at the disciplinary hearing and instead relied on the investigation report in a way that put the burden on the claimant to disprove the allegations. The appeal did not cure those defects. The tribunal nevertheless recorded that summary dismissal could have been within the band of reasonable responses if the respondent had relied only on the Margaret incident, and it found that the claimant had contributed to her dismissal and that a Polkey reduction might be relevant at remedy. The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded because, although the tribunal accepted that the Margaret incident was serious, it did not amount to a repudiatory breach justifying summary dismissal; it might have justified dismissal with notice, but not dismissal without notice. Remedy was left for a hearing listed for 6 September 2021.