Claimant v The Royal Conservatoire of Scotland — 2021

Mrs D Richardson-Webb brought a single claim of unfair dismissal against the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland. The respondent accepted that she had been dismissed and said the reason was gross misconduct or misconduct. The tribunal identified the issues under sections 98(1), (2) and (4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, together with the reasonableness of the sanction and, if relevant, Polkey and contribution questions.

The tribunal found that the earlier 2019 Dignity at Work and Study process did not produce a clear disciplinary outcome from Prof Hodgart: his July 2019 letter did not specify which conduct allegations were upheld or rejected, did not impose a disciplinary sanction, and therefore did not create a concluded disciplinary finding that prevented later reliance on the same underlying matters. It accepted the use of anonymous complaints in principle, but said the later disciplinary process still required proper particularisation of the allegations relied on.

On the 2020 disciplinary process, the tribunal held that Dr Fitch had a reasonable belief, and had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable, in relation to several specific allegations. Those included the café bar incident, the reference to a student being on a "cocktail of drugs" / "very strong meds", the Erasmus exchange criticism, the CPP "bubble" criticism, and the allegation that the claimant advised a student to split up with her boyfriend. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s challenge that a live hearing or appeal was required in the circumstances of her sickness absence, and found the written appeal process to have been as thorough as was reasonable.

However, the tribunal did not accept that the respondent had reasonable grounds, or a reasonable investigation, for a number of the broader and unparticularised allegations distilled from the External Review, the named person statement, and the Equality and Diversity Officer’s email. Even so, it concluded that the specific proven misconduct was sufficiently serious, taken together, to justify dismissal. The appeal by Professor Sharkey was not upheld, and the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The tribunal also noted that, if it had found procedural unfairness, it would have applied a 100% Polkey reduction and a 100% reduction for contribution, but no remedy arose because the claim failed.