In person For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant, a senior broadcast journalist and producer, was dismissed after an episode of the Books Juice programme featuring Dr Ahmed Sobhi Mansour led to significant social media criticism. The tribunal found that the material broadcast was controversial and potentially offensive to many viewers, but it did not amount to abusive treatment of religious views under Ofcom rule 4.2 or the respondent's Editorial Guide. It also found that the claimant had received the relevant Ofcom and editorial guidance, but that the supposed workflow for referring sensitive content up the management chain was not clearly defined and was left to editorial judgment at first instance.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent's reason for dismissal was gross misconduct, but held that the investigation was not reasonably conducted and fell outside the range of reasonable procedures. It found that the investigation report misquoted Dr Mansour, failed properly to consider the programme as a whole and the repeated disclaimers made during the broadcast, pre-judged the disciplinary outcome, and wrongly concluded that the claimant had misled management. The tribunal further found that the dismissal letter relied on a supposed breach of Ofcom rule 4.2 and on a failure to refer up sensitive content, but that the claimant had committed only a single error of editorial judgment and that summary dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses.

The appeal was also found to be procedurally unfair because Mr Abbas Nasser had been significantly involved before the appeal, had already expressed a strong view that the claimant's conduct was "totally unacceptable", and was therefore not an appropriate appeal manager. Taking the evidence as a whole, the tribunal held that the dismissal was substantively unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996. The separate automatically unfair dismissal claim based on trade union membership and/or activities was dismissed because the tribunal found the disciplinary action was driven by the broadcast and the resulting backlash, and that the timing of the suspension was coincidental to the claimant's trade union activity.