Oliver Fuller (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant was employed as a teacher from 23 April 2019 until his summary dismissal on 5 January 2022 for gross misconduct. The allegations concerned a female student’s complaint that he had repeatedly rubbed his hand down her arm and smiled at her in a way that made her uncomfortable. The tribunal recorded that the respondent treated the allegations as substantiated at the disciplinary hearing and dismissed him, and that the appeal later confirmed that decision.

The tribunal found significant deficiencies in the investigation and disciplinary process. Mr K had investigated earlier complaints about the claimant and was again the investigating officer, and the tribunal held that he brought a degree of prejudice to the investigation. It found that the student interviews were perfunctory, that there were gaps in the evidence, that student J was not interviewed before the disciplinary hearing, and that corroboration was not sought for some of the allegations. The tribunal also noted inconsistencies in the student accounts, including the implausibility of the allegation that the touching happened about 80 times, and found that the head teacher, D, had also appeared to have formed a view before the hearing.

Applying s.98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell test, the tribunal accepted that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, but held that the belief was not reasonably held because it rested on a flawed and inadequate investigation. The tribunal concluded that no reasonable employer would have dismissed the claimant in the circumstances, and that the decision fell outside the band of reasonable responses. It therefore held that the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair. A remedy hearing was to be listed; this judgment did not determine any monetary award.