Mr N Barnes v Manchester City Council — 2020

The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant for misconduct and that the dismissing officer and appeal officer genuinely believed he had committed the misconduct alleged. That belief was based on a detailed investigation of the claimant’s caseload, which identified significant practice concerns including failures relating to safeguarding, section 47 work, seeing children alone where required, and case recording.

The tribunal accepted that the investigation before the disciplinary hearing took too long and did not comply with the ACAS expectation that matters be dealt with promptly. It found that the delay caused some prejudice, including stress to the claimant, some loss of recollection, and the absence of evidence from his former manager. However, it concluded that the investigation was still full and thorough overall, and that the delay did not by itself make the dismissal unfair.

The tribunal held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses for an employer dealing with the failings identified in the claimant’s role as a senior social worker. It rejected the claimant’s arguments that he had been singled out because of what he said in May 2017, that there had been material inconsistency in treatment, and that the HCPC interim order decision showed the dismissal was unfair.