In person For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant, Mr Mansfield, brought a single complaint of unfair dismissal arising from his summary dismissal by Northampton College on 28 November 2018 for alleged gross misconduct. The tribunal identified the issues under s.98(1) and s.98(4) ERA 1996 and reminded itself of the Burchell principles and the band of reasonable responses approach. It found that the dismissal was plainly for conduct and that there was no evidence of any ulterior or undisclosed reason.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had made most of the comments alleged in relation to events on 14 and 15 May 2018, though he argued they were taken out of context. It found that the College carried out a reasonable and thorough investigation through Ms Dubas, including multiple interviews of the claimant, Ms Twelvetree and Ms Spurling, extensive witness evidence, and separate investigation of the grievances raised during the disciplinary process. The delay between the incidents and the initial interviews was held not to be unreasonable because the relevant people were on leave, and the tribunal considered the investigation reports detailed and balanced.

The tribunal also found the disciplinary process fair. It held that suspension was a neutral act and that the claimant had a proper opportunity to state his case, including at the suspension appeal, the disciplinary hearing on 7 November 2018, and the appeal hearing on 18 December 2018. It accepted that Mr Rankine and Ms Brennan-Barrett genuinely believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct, and that their decisions were structured, clear, thorough and reasoned.

On the substantive dismissal decision, the tribunal found that Mr Rankine was entitled to conclude that the claimant’s conduct towards two colleagues on consecutive days amounted to gross misconduct and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. It noted that the claimant had also called his then line manager a "disgrace" in an earlier 2017 incident, and held that Mr Rankine was entitled to refer to that as a relevant circumstance under Airbus UK Ltd v Webb, although it did not tip the balance in favour of dismissal. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore dismissed.