(sitting alone) Ms J Gibson v Represented by: Ms L Campbell Solicitor Dundee City Council — 2017

Ms Gibson brought a single claim of unfair dismissal against Dundee City Council after being summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. The employer relied on two matters: that she had claimed carer’s leave on 9 and 10 June 2015 while her mother was working at Craigowl School, and that she had posted offensive comments on Facebook on 3 July and 16 August 2015 about her workplace. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, management witnesses and supporting witnesses, and the claim was dismissed.

The tribunal found that the respondents had carried out an adequate investigation and that Mr Wood, who took the dismissal decision, had a genuine belief in the claimant’s misconduct. Ms Snee interviewed the relevant witnesses, took statements and later chaired the investigation because Ms Wise had already been involved as a witness. Mr Wood gave the claimant repeated opportunities to produce documentary evidence supporting her account that she had attended A&E with her mother on 10 June, but no such evidence was produced. The tribunal accepted that he had considered the conflicting evidence carefully.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996, British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell, Sainsbury’s v Hitt and Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones, the tribunal held that the respondents had shown a potentially fair reason for dismissal based on conduct and that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal noted that the claimant’s conduct on 9 June in phoning in to say she was taking carer’s leave and then taking her mother to work was inappropriate, and that the Facebook posts were admitted and were highly inappropriate for a professional teacher. Although the tribunal said that if the only allegation had been the 9/10 June absence it would not have justified dismissal, the combination of that matter with the Facebook posts meant the dismissal was fair.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant was under considerable personal stress because of her mother’s illness and said the dismissal was harsh with serious personal consequences. Even so, it concluded that sympathy for the claimant did not make the dismissal unfair. The claim was therefore dismissed and no remedy was awarded.