Mr B Sobnack v Loughborough University — 2021

Mr Sobnack was the warden of Harry French Hall under a separate contract of wardenship from 1 December 2002 until his dismissal. The tribunal held that that contract was a contract of employment for ERA 1996 purposes. In reaching that conclusion, it relied on the wording of the contract, which described the relationship as employment, Mr Sobnack’s obligation to perform the role personally, the University’s control over substitution, and the overall consistency of the arrangement with employment rather than another form of working relationship.

The respondent relied on three complaints about Mr Sobnack’s communication and management style, made by sub-wardens Mr Henry, Ms Chang and Ms Doma. The tribunal accepted that Mr Sobnack had on two earlier occasions received only informal advice about his tone, and it accepted that Dr Alonso genuinely lost trust and confidence when he received Ms Doma’s complaint. However, it found that most of the earlier allegations had not been proved, that Ms Doma’s allegations had not been investigated at all, and that a reasonable employer would have either investigated or given the benefit of the doubt to Mr Sobnack rather than treating the allegations as established facts.

The tribunal held that dismissal for some other substantial reason was a potentially fair reason, but the dismissal was unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996. It found that the University had gone straight to dismissal without investigation, had a closed mind before the dismissal meeting, and had failed to offer any appeal from the dismissal decision. It also held that the review by Professor Thomson did not cure those defects because it was not a genuine appeal against the fairness of the process.

On remedy, the tribunal held that compensation should be limited to 31 August 2021 because Mr Sobnack would have retired from the wardenship on that date in any event. It found contributory conduct because one of his messages to Ms Doma was brusque, blunt and unnecessarily aggressive in tone, and reduced both the basic award and compensatory award by 25%. It did not order reinstatement or re-engagement, finding that the breakdown in trust and confidence was genuine, that the relationship with Dr Alonso would not be workable, and that the role would in any event have been for only a short further period. The tribunal also held that the ACAS Code did not apply because the dismissal was for some other substantial reason, and that free accommodation was not to be counted in the week’s pay for the statutory cap. The final awards were a basic award of £4,129.38 and a compensatory award of £10,299.84.