Mrs Alice Cubbin v Suffolk County Council — 2021

Mrs Alice Cubbin was employed as School Business Manager at The Bridge School and was summarily dismissed with effect from 15 December 2018 after allegations about recruitment records, the single central record, office papers and a bank mandate issue. The tribunal found that the true reason for dismissal was the respondent's perception of how she managed the HR files and SCR, and that the dismissal was conduct-related rather than a capability dismissal or a decision to sweep away the old guard.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that the respondent genuinely believed Allegation 1, but it held that no reasonable employer would have treated the Ofsted wording and the file audits as sufficient proof of the specific statutory-guidance breaches alleged. The audits did not identify the staff members, start dates or roles needed to show whether particular checks were required, and the claimant was not given a proper opportunity to test the evidence. The tribunal also found significant and unexplained delay in the investigation, a failure properly to review suspension, and an overall process that was not within the range of reasonable responses.

The tribunal said the Office allegation and Bank allegation had reasonable grounds, but the Bank allegation did not form part of the dismissal decision. It further found that there was a 20% chance a reasonable employer could have dismissed fairly for Allegation 1 if there had been a reasonable investigation, which mattered to Polkey, and that the claimant's disorganised handling of the office and records amounted to culpable conduct for possible contributory reduction. It also found an unreasonable delay contrary to the ACAS Code and said an uplift might be appropriate, but the amount was left to the remedy hearing.

On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal held that the respondent had not proved gross misconduct or serious professional misconduct on the balance of probabilities, so the summary dismissal without notice was wrongful. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was to be dealt with at a separate remedy hearing.