Ms M Tebbutt and Mr A Chapman v Leicester City Council — 2020

The claimants were dismissed following disciplinary proceedings arising from events at Leicester Leys Leisure Centre on 13 April 2018. Mr Chapman was dismissed for alleged inappropriate workplace behaviour including verbal abuse, aggression, physical assault and sexual harassment. Ms Tebbutt was dismissed for alleged inappropriate behaviour and failure in her management responsibilities and duty of care. The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct, which was a potentially fair reason.

The tribunal held that the investigation was not within the band of reasonable responses. It found that the investigation was not even-handed, that relevant witnesses were not interviewed, that Mr Chapman was not given adequate detail of the allegations before being questioned, and that the investigating officer's approach and report showed a partial and biased approach. The tribunal also considered that the CCTV evidence was inconclusive on disputed remarks and that the employer did not give proper reasons for preferring AG's account over Mr Chapman's denial or lack of recollection.

For Mr Chapman, the tribunal found that the employer had not based its belief in the key misconduct allegations on reasonable grounds. It considered that the allegations concerning reputational damage and loss of trust and confidence added little or were unsupported, and that the set-up and office incidents would not have justified dismissal on their own. For Ms Tebbutt, the tribunal found no reasonable basis for concluding that she had seen or heard the relevant interaction and failed to act, and held that her long service had not been adequately treated as mitigation.

The appeals did not cure the defects. The tribunal noted significant delays and formulaic appeal reasons, and in Ms Tebbutt's case observed that the appeal committee had accepted that it could not definitively establish whether she fully observed the incident. On the wrongful dismissal claims, the tribunal found that the respondent had not proved on the balance of probabilities that either claimant had committed a repudiatory breach justifying summary dismissal.