Mr Colin Hart v Represented by: Mr R Lawson -10 Solicitor Glasgow City Council — 2018

The claimant, a Land and Environmental Operative, was dismissed after an incident on 6 September 2017 involving the St Rollox and Western rapid response teams. The respondent said he had assaulted Mr Ryan and threatened colleagues verbally and with a hammer. The tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was conduct and approached the case under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Burchell test, asking whether the respondent genuinely believed the misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out as much investigation as was reasonable.

The tribunal found the respondent had investigated the incident by taking statements and interviewing the relevant workers and managers, but it held that Mr Sutton did not have reasonable grounds to sustain his belief that the claimant was guilty. The tribunal placed weight on the fact that when the incident was first reported to supervisors on 6 September 2017, no one mentioned an assault or a hammer. Those matters appeared only in Mr Russell's later statement, and Mr Russell largely refused to answer questions during the investigation and disciplinary process. The tribunal also noted that Mr Russell changed one point at the disciplinary hearing, saying it was Mr Laing rather than the claimant who had asked for his phone number.

The tribunal found Mr Sutton relied uncritically on Mr Russell's statement, did not properly test whether the allegations had been exaggerated or fabricated, and did not give proper weight to inconsistencies in the evidence, including Mr Ryan's denial of any assault and Mr Coletta's uncertainty about whether a mark on Mr Ryan's face was anything more than dirt. It also found the appeal process lacked fairness because the appeal panel did not have the disciplinary notes, did not call Mr Russell, and effectively rubber-stamped the dismissal. The tribunal further held that HR went beyond an advisory role in the way the dismissal and appeal were handled.

The unfair dismissal claim was therefore upheld. On remedy, the tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that the claimant had caused or contributed to his dismissal. It found reinstatement practicable and just, ordered reinstatement by 14 January 2019, restored seniority and pension rights, and awarded arrears of net pay of £20,125.96. In calculating that sum, the tribunal accepted gross weekly pay of £357.79 and net weekly pay of £314.44.