In person For the v Respondent — 2020

Ms Jasmine Williams was employed by the London Borough of Brent and later moved into a Trainee Housing Needs Officer role. The tribunal considered four disciplinary allegations: that she had put forward Mr Manickam as a referee instead of her line manager, that she had misled Ms Fourcampre about the new role she was taking, that she had left her Bridge Park post without working her notice, and that she had provided a fraudulent 8 August 2018 offer letter. The dismissal decision was taken by Mr Coaker after investigation by Mr Ukwenu, with an appeal heard by Mr Osinaike.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the handling of allegation 2 was flawed because Mr Coaker misunderstood the claimant’s case about what had been said to Ms Fourcampre, and there was also a procedural failing at the 5 October 2018 fact-finding meeting because the claimant was not offered representation and the notes were withheld. Even so, the tribunal found that allegation 1 was open to the respondent on the evidence about the claimant’s knowledge of the reporting line and the reference form, allegation 3 was a clear breach of contract in leaving without notice, and allegation 4 could reasonably be upheld because the claimant’s account of the Unisef/RTC letter was found implausible. Taking allegations 1, 3 and 4 together, the tribunal held that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses and the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.

On notice pay/wrongful dismissal, the tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the claimant did mislead Ms Fourcampre about her next role and that she was aware by the time of the later discussions that Ms Fourcampre was her line manager. However, it was not satisfied that allegation 1 was proved as misconduct sufficient to justify summary dismissal, and it was not satisfied that allegation 4 was made out. Allegation 3 remained misconduct, but the tribunal treated the fact that the claimant arranged cover for all remaining shifts and was close to the end of her notice period as significant mitigation. It concluded that the conduct found was not sufficiently serious to amount to repudiatory breach, so the notice pay claim succeeded in the sum of £1,503.80.