In person For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant was employed by Santander from 21 April 2008 and was dismissed on 31 March 2017 for gross misconduct arising from events on 7 March 2014. The tribunal found that she was pregnant on that date and later miscarried, and that during the incident she suffered abdominal pain, bleeding and distress, collapsed in the branch and was taken to hospital. However, it found that neither Ms Daley, Ms Moore, Mr Briggs nor Mr Fallis knew at the relevant time that she was pregnant or miscarrying, so the complaints of pregnancy/maternity discrimination and automatic unfair dismissal were not made out.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the respondent's process was substantially flawed. No proper investigation was carried out for a long period, Ms Daley relied on a management report rather than a disciplinary investigation, the investigating officer was a subordinate chosen by Ms Daley, witness interviews and proper statement forms were not obtained, and no clear decision was made to send the matter to a Stage 3 hearing. The charge was never particularised with any precision, and the tribunal found that material before the decision-makers included matters outside the charge and omitted important medical evidence and the requested CCTV.

The disciplinary hearing was also found to be unfair because it proceeded in the claimant's absence when she had provided a fit note and was unwell, and because Mr Briggs treated the incident as a "whole event" without identifying specific words or conduct amounting to verbal abuse or aggression towards other members of staff. The appeal did not cure the defects, and the tribunal found that no reasonable employer would have relied on this process. It therefore upheld ordinary unfair dismissal and breach of contract, while dismissing the pregnancy/maternity discrimination and automatic unfair dismissal complaints. The extracted judgment does not set out a monetary award.