Mr Jeffrey Hughes v CALA Management Limited — 2021

Mr Jeffrey Hughes was employed as a Senior Technical Manager and was summarily dismissed on 2 March 2020 after Ms X, a Sales Consultant, complained about his conduct. The tribunal found that, over 2019, he sent a series of emails and Facebook messages containing sexual innuendo, pursued her for personal contact, and on 13 November 2019 made a direct sexual advance in person. It found that Ms X did not welcome the conduct and that the claimant knew, or should have known, that his behaviour was unwelcome.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was conduct. It rejected the claimant's case that the investigation was biased, that the process had impermissibly changed from grievance to discipline, that he had not been given a fair chance to respond, or that the respondent relied on an undefined broader notion of him being a "sexual predator". Applying s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, it found the investigation, disciplinary hearing, and appeal to be within the range of reasonable responses. It also found that the claimant had been told enough about the allegations and policies to understand the case against him, and that any procedural shortcomings were in any event addressed on appeal.

On sanction, the tribunal held that dismissal was reasonable and that the decision-maker had considered mitigation and alternatives. It also said that, had it been necessary, it would have found contributory fault of 100% because of the claimant's culpable conduct in sexually harassing Ms X.

On the wrongful dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct and that the respondent was therefore contractually entitled to dismiss him without notice. It found that the emails and the in-person incident on 13 November 2019, taken together, were serious enough to justify summary dismissal, and it dismissed the wrongful dismissal claim.