Mrs Amy Harding v Oldham College — 2022

Mrs Amy Harding was employed by Oldham College from 28 September 2009 until her summary dismissal on 9 October 2020. The dismissal followed a stop and search on 4 September 2020, after a colleague reported smelling cannabis near her and a search of her bag found a small amount of substance identified by the searchers as cannabis, together with a cone and roach. The tribunal accepted that the college had a zero-tolerance policy on illegal drugs and that the dismissal reason was conduct.

The tribunal found that the relevant decision-makers genuinely believed the claimant had brought cannabis and paraphernalia onto college premises, and that belief was held on reasonable grounds after an investigation that was adequate in the circumstances. It accepted the evidence of the searchers and the observing colleague, who consistently said there was a strong smell of cannabis and that cannabis leaves were found in the bag. The tribunal noted some minor inconsistencies in the accounts, but held that they did not undermine the core finding. It also rejected the claimant’s argument that the searchers may have been biased, as no basis for that was put to the respondent at the time.

On procedure, the tribunal held that it was not unfair to refuse a further adjournment of the disciplinary hearing, or to continue when the claimant became too distressed to proceed. It accepted that the respondent had taken her communications and sick notes into account and was entitled to move the process forward after some delay. The tribunal also held that the second allegation, that she was under the influence of illegal substances at work, was not sufficiently investigated, but that did not matter because the dismissing officer did not rely on that allegation in the dismissal decision.

The one material procedural defect was that the Stop and Search policy had not been provided before the disciplinary hearing, despite being requested. The tribunal held that this was unfair at first instance because it prevented the claimant from using the policy to challenge the searchers’ adherence to procedure. However, it found that the unfairness was remedied on appeal, because the policy was then supplied, the claimant was able to identify the points she wished to raise, and the appeal officer investigated those points before upholding dismissal. Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, the tribunal concluded that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses and dismissed the claim.