Mr D Haycock v Babcock International — 2019

Mr D Haycock was employed as a medical fitness booking call team leader from 12 October 2015. The dismissal arose from an incident on 9 November 2018 involving David Hilton, a member of his team. The tribunal recorded that the claimant admitted swearing at Mr Hilton, but denied making physical contact with him. The respondent investigated the incident, interviewed the claimant, Mr Hilton and five other team members, and provided the claimant with redacted witness statements before the disciplinary hearing on 30 November 2018, at which he was dismissed for gross misconduct without notice or payment in lieu of notice. His appeal was heard on 19 December 2018 and rejected on 20 December 2018.

The tribunal identified the central question as whether the respondent had a reasonable belief that the claimant pushed Mr Hilton and whether dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. It noted that the disciplinary policy treated physical violence or bullying of staff as potential gross misconduct, and that the letters and hearing invitation referred to physical contact, but did not describe that contact in detail. The tribunal said reasonableness required the employer to be specific about the nature of the contact, because not all physical contact could properly be described as violence.

On the evidence, the tribunal found the witness accounts broadly consistent on both the swearing and the physical contact. Mr Hilton said he could not remember whether he had been touched, although he recalled saying "don't touch me". Four other witnesses said the claimant pushed Mr Hilton, with one describing the push as on the shoulder rather than the chest. The tribunal held that it was reasonable for Mr Atkins to conclude that the claimant had pushed Mr Hilton, and that this was conduct capable of amounting to violence for the purposes of the disciplinary procedure.

The tribunal also considered the role of Helen Cotton, who assisted the investigation and advised at the disciplinary hearing, but found that her participation did not taint the decision. It accepted that the procedure was fair despite the use of anonymous witness statements and the fact that the witnesses were not called to give evidence at the hearing. The claimant knew who the witnesses were, could read their statements, did not suggest they had reason to lie, and the tribunal held that the respondent had a genuine belief in the misconduct, had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable, and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed and no monetary award was made.