H Boyd D Frew Ms Sarah Morag Robertson v Represented by: Mr M Allison - Solicitor The Glasgow Clyde College — 2020

Ms Robertson was Head of Curriculum for Computing at Glasgow Clyde College when six staff raised a collective grievance in June 2018 alleging, among other matters, out-of-hours emails, exclusion from training, and bullying or intimidating management. The College investigated under its disciplinary procedure, suspended her while the investigation was carried out, and Ms Janet Thomson interviewed 16 people and concluded there was no misconduct but there was a significant breakdown in relationships within the School of Computing requiring urgent action.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent's genuine reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason, namely the breakdown in relationships between Ms Robertson and members of her team, rather than a conduct dismissal. It rejected the suggestion that the reason was really misconduct, and held that the respondent had reasonable grounds to sustain its belief that the relationship breakdown existed, based on the investigation evidence and Ms Robertson's own acceptance that there had been difficulties with five members of staff.

On procedure, the tribunal held that using the disciplinary procedure to investigate the collective grievance, and suspending Ms Robertson during the investigation, were within the band of reasonable responses. It also held, however, that the claimant was not given adequate notice of the allegations and supporting material in time to fully answer them during the investigation. The tribunal found that Ms Thomson did not decide each individual allegation on its merits, but did identify common themes and perceptions across the evidence, which was sufficient for the employer to conclude there had been a breakdown in relationships.

The decisive issue was alternatives to dismissal. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the band of reasonable responses test, the tribunal held that the College did not adequately explore mediation, training, changes to line management, moving Computing to a different Faculty, secondment, holding vacancies, or further negotiation around the proposed STEM and Worldskills role. The appeal under section 8 of the disciplinary procedure did not cure that defect. The tribunal therefore found the dismissal unfair and listed the case for a remedy hearing rather than making a monetary award in the liability judgment.