Mr W Ryan v University of Salford — 2019

The claimant, Mr W Ryan, brought a single claim of unfair dismissal arising from his dismissal by the University of Salford. The tribunal identified the dismissal reason as conduct under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and framed the central issue as whether the respondent honestly believed, on reasonable grounds and after a reasonable investigation, that the claimant had been guilty of gross misconduct, and whether dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. It also applied the approach in Ivey v Genting Casinos when considering the claimant's own belief that he had permission to remove the printer.

The tribunal found that the claimant had removed a printer from university premises and that he had a live final written warning for misconduct at the time. It accepted that the claimant had asked an unidentified person, whom he thought might be security or a porter, whether he could borrow the printer, but found that this was only a brief conversation "in passing" and that the words used did not amount to clear permission. The tribunal also found that letting the claimant through the security barrier to collect the printer, and later to return it, did not amount to permission to remove university property.

The tribunal accepted that there had been some initial procedural defects, including the failure to send an immediate suspension letter and the fact that the first suspension decision was not taken at the level contemplated by the disciplinary policy. However, it found that those defects were corrected shortly afterwards, that the investigation by Darren Kibble was reasonable in the circumstances, and that Mr Withnell gave the claimant a fair hearing and took time to reflect before deciding to dismiss him with notice. It also held that the claimant had been given sufficient opportunity to consult his brother during the process, even though his brother was not permitted to sit in the hearing room as a companion.

The tribunal concluded that an ordinary reasonable and honest person with the same information available to the claimant would not have thought permission had been obtained, and that the respondent was entitled to take account of the live final written warning when deciding on dismissal. It therefore held that the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses. The claim of unfair dismissal was dismissed.