Mr Bloom, Solicitor For the v Respondent — 2022

Mr AB Izod was employed as the respondent golf club’s secretary from 25 September 2000 until his dismissal on 15 October 2021. The dismissal arose from two allegations made in September 2021: that on 22 September he patted Employee A on the bottom, and that on 24 September he touched Employee B in the groin area while making a backward hand movement. The respondent kept both complainants anonymous because they asked not to be identified. After investigation, a disciplinary hearing and an appeal, the claimant was dismissed for misconduct relating to Employee B; the allegation concerning Employee A was not found proved to the required standard.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that misconduct was a potentially fair reason under s.98(2) ERA 1996 and applied the Burchell and Post Office v Foley approach to reasonableness. It rejected the claimant’s arguments that the process was unfair because of missing signed statements, insufficient notes, the absence of Employee B from the hearings, the protection of the complainants’ identities, the timing of disclosure of CCTV, and alleged undue influence by Mr Day. The tribunal found that the claimant had been given sufficient information about the allegations, that the 2019 handbook was the operative policy, and that Mr Day’s involvement was advisory only.

The tribunal found that the respondent held a genuine belief that the claimant had committed misconduct in relation to Employee B, that belief was based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. It also found that the claimant’s account did not undermine the respondent’s conclusion and that the CCTV material did not make the process unfair. The claim for unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed.

On breach of contract, the claimant sought 12 weeks’ notice pay. The tribunal said it had to decide for itself whether the claimant’s conduct amounted to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal, and it applied the same factual findings as it had made on the misconduct allegations. It concluded that the claimant had committed a repudiatory breach of contract and was not entitled to notice pay. The breach of contract claim was dismissed and no monetary award was made.